To the editor:

Mr Davis has well described the potential for good or ill in the creation of a commission to deal with middle governing body matters. I regularly classify issues according to temperature and import: some issues are hot without much import, some are hot and important. This one is cool and very important- – it could be a game-changer, as already noted.

Here I raise a concern I have not seen raised elsewhere. Twenty-one people will be appointed by this Moderator and the next--a common method--in consultation with the GA Nominating Committee. Some of the characteristics of many who are selected by this method are that they are trusted by the system, deemed knowledgeable, and are known. What I have observed over the years is that this process has a tendency to exclude critics of the system, even those who are competent and knowledgeable.

I believe we are in a time where the trust level is very low. Granting significant power to a commission to decide these matters in a time of distrust may not be wise. The matter could be exacerbated by the selection process. If those appointed are viewed by a significant number of people in the church as somehow biased in favor of a particular outcome, then it could damage the credibility of the commission and any actions it may take, and consequently make the trust problem worse. If the commission is well selected, it could work well.

I note that if such a commission is selected in a way that different views are represented by a sufficient number and by people who are forceful and articulate, we will need to address the matter of time. It is much harder to arrive at conclusions and decisions when people have to address issues over which they disagree. It can be done--it was done with the Peace Unity and Purity Task Force--but time is a key ingredient.