The committee biased? No, all the people who matter were included.

Here we read,

First, it has been suggested that the composition of the Committee was unfairly weighted. On the contrary… [read the rest]

As Jeff put it in only one of his thirty points:

5. The failure to appoint men who could represent the FV viewpoint is probably a violation of Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules (which the Assembly is required to follow unless it has adopted its own special rules) specifies that “special committees” (i.e. committees which are not permanent, standing committees but committees formed for particular purposes, such as for study, investigation, etc.) should be composed of representatives of “all points of view”:”When a special committee is appointed for deliberation or investigation. . . it should represent, as far as possible, all points of view in the organization, so that its opinion will carry maximum weight (§49, “Appointment of Committees,” subtitle “Proper Composition of Committees,” emphasis added).”

Robert’s Rules goes on to state, “The usefulness of the committee will be greatly impaired, on the other hand, if any important faction of the assembly is not represented.” Just as Robert’s Rules warned, the usefulness of this Report is indeed greatly impaired because of the Moderator’s failure to include qualified representatives of the assembly who could speak for the men associated with the FV.

It would be very unwise for the Assembly to adopt a badly skewed Report that was produced by a committee that did not properly represent all relevant points of view in the PCA.

The response? No one counts but the groups represented on the committee. No one else matters. We have no need to include anyone, to recognize their years of service, to regard them in any way as brothers, except in acknowledging the need to condemn and marginalize them by this stacked committee–which isn’t stacked because no one else counts.

Truly, it is a grievous thing to watch hearts harden.

4 thoughts on “The committee biased? No, all the people who matter were included.

  1. JWDS

    Did you notice that at one point they said that responses to the “27” questions (is this a mistaken reference to Jeff’s 30 questions? If so, it doesn’t say much for their accuracy in reading…) are found at the same blog (humbleanswers), but the only post on that blog is the letter that says the responses are found there? So, they don’t actually have the responses available that they refer to in the open letter. And the open letter doesn’t say “responses will be forthcoming” on the blog…

    Reply
  2. mark Post author

    I have to assume they counted the questions asked in the pastoral letter that was sent out by those pastors and it came to 27. I don’t think they would make a mistake like that about the 30.

    Reply
  3. Mom/Ruth

    I also ran into the circular links and felt confused/misled. On top of that, the only ones who can comment are those who agree and want their names added to the Open Letter. Is that common?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *