General Assembly and Congress

So, one other benefit of sitting around waiting to fleet up is that I was actually able to watch most of the PC(USA) General Assembly online last week.  As someone who will have both voice and vote in my presbytery in the near future I figured it would be best for me to watch the debate to get a feel of how decisions were made last week when the overtures come to my presbytery next year and I have to vote on approval or disapproval of the issues.  I was actually really interested in the debates and had a fairly good time watching it online.  I found it amazing that I knew some of the people arguing their cases or leading worship, etc.  It proved that the Presbyterian world is a small, small world. 

While watching something struck me.  What if Congress actually operated in the spirit of the General Assembly?  I think things would be more transparent, efficient and even civil.  First off I really like the idea of the committee having to defend their decision to accept or deny a certain item coming out of committee.  The committee moderator had to stand up and answer questions (with subject matter expert assistance) coming from the assembled delegates.  Open and honest in dealing with the work of a committee before coming to the whole body.  Can you imagine our elected representatives actually engaging in a true question and answer session on the floor of Congress instead of grandstanding?  Imagine the amount of work that can get done.  Also contributing to the transparency is that all overtures from individual presbyteries are due by a certain date and every commissioner gets to read the initial overture prior to the convening of the assembly.  There aren't many surprises in the agenda.  In the outcome and amendments that come out of committee perhaps but not in the general topics. 

The General Assembly process is extremely efficient.  The moderator of the assembly allows a fairly even distribution of debate on the issue alternating between supporters and detractors of the committee's stance.  Each person is given a definite time limit and is promptly cut off when time expires.  This forces you to make your point or ask your question in a succinct manner and not waste valuable time.  Good debate occurs and many matters are covered.  Additionally, there is no hope of extending the session beyond the number of days allotted so everyone stays until the work is done each night.  There are no press junkets during the voting sessions so things keep moving with committees reporting in a continuous manner consistent with the schedule.  By having to read so much and expecting that every overture must be read by a large number of people, overtures are generally short and everyone is prepared to debate the issue which smooths the process. 

Civility is the operative word at General Assembly.  Even when people disagree, and this they do well, personal attacks rarely if ever occur.  I don't recall any personal attack in the hours of debate on contentious topics that I watched online.  Seeing that occur made me proud to belong to a denomination that values civil debate, especially in light of the venom coming from all political sides when watching a debate in Washington or on a show giving voice to political pundits. 

How do we get people to believe that a debate can be transparent, efficient and civil?  Maybe that is the question we need to ask before we dive in to important debates in our larger society.