September 17, 2007: Form of Government Task Force

I received in the mail a letter asking congregations to look at the proposed changes and revisions to the Form of Government.

On paper, the attempt to streamline the way we do things and to simplify the Constitution makes sense. In reality, it ignores the reasons why the Book of Order has grown.

Additions to the Book of Order happen as a result of conflict within the church. No one whimsically goes through the effort of proposing an amendment to a presbytery so it can overture the General Assembly so it can pay the expenses of an Overture Advocate so, if the General Assembly approves it, it can take the lead in advocating the change through the voting of the 173 presbyteries.

I have not downloaded the draft yet. My plan is to accept the invitation of the Form of Government Task Force and have the session of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church review and respond. They will receive it as an assignment next Tuesday to be completed by the last Tuesday in October.

I commend the Form of Government Task Force for soliciting input; they recognize "We don't pretend to have all the answers. We need your help." (Emphasis in original).

I hope their work is not an exercise in futility. It is hard to imagine how even the most wonderful revisions could re-instill a sense of trust in a system that has been horribly compromised by trust-destroying behavior. I confess that I will be looking at this to see where are the hidden loopholes and intentionally ambiguous language.

Can a revision of a mostly-ignored Book of Order restore trust? Stay tuned.

September 18, 2007: A First Glance into the Proposed FOG

I began looking to the proposed overhaul of the Form of Government (available for download) mentioned yesterday. Like everyone else, before I invest in a full review, I wanted to see how some of my favorite sections fared.

I started with the Preliminary Principles. I have always found G-3.0300a, "The Church's Calling" to be encouraging,

"The Church is called to tell the good news of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior and Lord proclaiming in Word and Sacrament that the new age has dawned, and that God who creates life also frees those in bondage, forgives sin, reconciles brokenness, makes all things new, and is still at work in the world."

Did it make it into the new revision? Well, here's the parallel listed in the side-by-side comparison:

F-1.0302a. The Apostolicity of the Church

The Church is apostolic because it receives the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ through the testimony of those whom Christ sent, and because it is itself sent into the world by Jesus Christ to bear that testimony to others. The mission of the Church is to proclaim in Word and Sacrament that the new age has dawned, and that God who creates life also frees those in bondage, forgives sin, reconciles brokenness, makes all things new, and is still at work in the world.

Sigh.

It's just not quite the same, is it?

Things change when you change things.

What's the big deal? "Only" is missing.

"Only" is a big deal. Whether by oversight or by intention, the re-writing of this section and the elimination of the word "only" was a theological choice. The new language is not only convoluted, it substantively removes the conviction that Jesus' death has meaning for everyone. By its removal, it creates an ambiguity that a fuzzy Jesus -- the Jesus of other religions, the Jesus of our own creation, the Jesus who pleases us -- is sufficient for salvation. Salvation in Christ is not like an ice cream truck to which we call others if they would like a treat; "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved."

"Only" is a big deal; remember the Peacemaking crisis? "What's the big deal about Jesus?" The Confessing Church Movement, the "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ" statement, and even the New Wineskins' breaking away are all traceable to the denomination's inability and unwillingness to be accountable to the message of salvation revealed in Scripture.

Theology matters. Words matter.

Look, I understand that the Form of Government is not a systematic theology; it is not the sum and substance of our collective witness.

Even so, as I mentioned yesterday, this proposed revision makes sense only if it inspires trust and does not appear to be designed to create ambiguity and loopholes. In fairness, I have not exhaustively reviewed all the documents to see how this plays through. It may be there and I have not seen it. However, I had the wind taken out of my sails at the outset.

It is no fun trying to "catch" changes that have been made.

It is just sad to have this happen at the very first section I reviewed. It is difficult to work up a whole lot of enthusiasm to find reasons to support this revision when the first step is a gopher hole.

I will keep looking and reviewing. I will have my session look through it so that they may form their own opinions.

 

September 19, 2007: Digging Deeper into the FoG

Today, more on the proposed overhaul of the Form of Government, looking again at the beginning framework.

The Preliminary Principles (Chapters 1 - 4 in the current Form of Government) are re-titled in the new version, "Foundations of Presbyterian Polity." Aside from what I noticed yesterday, the proposed revision mostly is a restructuring and thinning out of some of the proclaiming language.

Yesterday's comments were a vote-changer for me. Today's are more akin to, "I would not have done things this way..."

Restructuring: The Foundations begin with a section entitled, "God's Activity. The Church bears witness to the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The current Book of Order begins with "All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, ...".

The issue for me is whether the rearranging is better. It is a different approach and, in my opinion, is not a better one. It is not bad; I just do not think it is as good -- and it is not as good for more of a reason than "we've always done it the other way."

In a Form of Government, the purpose is to define authority and explain how it is exercised. The proposed revision seems to start with a more broadly confessional statement -- ironically redundant to the Book of Confessions when the purpose of the exercise is to make simpler.

And, I guess, that's the point. The draft does not seem to be focused on the point of the Form of Government.

Thinning or Shaving? Sometimes thinning things out is less like a diet and more like an abrasive shave. For example, the Book of Order currently has:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.a God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.

The proposed revision has:

God has given to Jesus Christ all authority in heaven and on earth, not only in this age but also in the age to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.

I'm not a fan.

Yes, space is saved. Yes, it is only a Form of Government.

However.

It also is named "Foundations of Presbyterian Polity." The purpose of the document is to identify the extent and expression of authority. It seems to me -- again, more of a personal preference than a make-or-break criticism -- that the current language is better. Given that a substantial portion of the Preliminary Principles have been maintained in-tact, is ink so expensive that we need to contract this language that beautifully portrays the universal and eternal scope of Christ's authority?

Tomorrow: working into the details of the rest.

 

I realize that writing an exhaustive point-by-point review of the changes in the proposed revision to the Form of Government, along with an analysis of their impact, would be unreadable. The side-by-side comparision produced by the Task Force is more than 150 pages long.

The problem is that substantive changes -- unintentional or hidden -- are one of the dangers of doing a wholesale revision.

Here is an example of a non-essential change regarding congregational meetings that has substantive consequences:

The congregation shall hold an annual meeting and may hold other special meetings as necessary. The annual meeting shall review the adequacy of the compensation of the pastor or pastors and shall elect officers, and it may transact other business as appropriate.

The emphasized portion is a big change from what currently exists in G-7.0302:

The congregation shall hold an annual meeting and may hold other meetings as necessary. The annual meeting may consider such business as electing officers, hearing reports of the session along with plans for the coming year, hearing reports from the board of deacons and other organizations of the church, and transacting other business as is appropriate. It shall review the adequacy of the compensation of the pastor or pastors upon report of the prior review by the session.

The congregation I serve elects officers in the Fall, to be installed at the beginning of the year, prior to the Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting is a time for the required business, a "State of the Church" kind of address, and a potluck lunch. It is a celebration.

If the revision is adopted, we would be required ("shall" still means "shall" as far as I know) to change the timing of our election. It may not be a big deal in the larger schemes of things, but it begs the question, "Why?" I suppose we could scruple this one (if "shall" does not mean the same thing anymore), but I am unaware of any reason why elections MUST be held at the Annual Meeting.

How many other examples like this will I find?

Rewriting the Form of Government to simplify things seems like a good idea; but in reality, it means we have decided that the choices made by those who have gone before us are unimportant. It is disrespectful and dishonoring to our history. Bill Chapman wrote a book years ago entitled, Blood on Every Page, about the formation and development of the Book of Order.

I taught a Polity class last fall at Bethel Seminary in San Diego for Presbyterian students. We went through the Form of Government chapter by chapter. Chapman's title is appropriate. I could tell them a story or cite an example of an issue that led to the development of each chapter.

I feel for the members of the Task Force. I have no doubt they have given their best, that they have worked with honorable and noble intentions, and that criticism is going to hurt. Unfortunately, when looking at Forms of Government, the interpretive standard is "does this say what we think it says" AND "what problems will be created if we make these changes?"

The problem is that there are many problems created.

 

If you have been following along, you will know that I have been reviewing the changes proposed to the Form of Government (the G- sections of the Book of Order). I started this review after receiving a letter from the Task Force inviting sessions to study the proposal. I downloaded it from the site and began the process of review.

Now, I may be the only one for whom this is an issue, but after a phone call with a member of the Task Force, I have been informed that the on-line version I have been reviewing has been updated. The version I had was from March, the most recent (at least the one posted now) is from August. The change on-line was made mid-week. I apparently responded to their request too quickly.

Some changes have been made. In fact, using the illustration from yesterday, the language has changed again -- making more substantive changes, not less.

Let's stack them up:

The August 2007, Draft

The congregation shall hold an annual meeting and may hold special meetings as necessary. At least annually, the congregation shall review the adequacy of the compensation of the pastor or pastors and shall elect ruling elders, deacons, and trustees.

The March, 2007, draft

The congregation shall hold an annual meeting and may hold other special meetings as necessary. The annual meeting shall review the adequacy of the compensation of the pastor or pastors and shall elect officers, and it may transact other business as appropriate.

G-7.0302:

The congregation shall hold an annual meeting and may hold other meetings as necessary. The annual meeting may consider such business as electing officers, hearing reports of the session along with plans for the coming year, hearing reports from the board of deacons and other organizations of the church, and transacting other business as is appropriate. It shall review the adequacy of the compensation of the pastor or pastors upon report of the prior review by the session.

Do you see how innocuous changes make a big difference? In trying to bring clarity, more confusion is created.

For the congregation I serve, this would mean that in addition to requiring that the election of officers takes place at the annual meeting (when our congregation had held the elections during a special meeting in the Fall), we also would now be required to elect trustees -- a position that has never existed within our congregation. The language now requires ("shall") the election of "elders, deacons, and trustees."

The role of trustees is defined in G-7 as follows: "Any particular church which is not incorporated may select trustees from the members on the active roll of the church. The power and duties of such trustees shall not infringe upon the powers and duties of the session or of the board of deacons."

We are incorporated. We elect corporate officers. If the new rules are approved, we would be required:

Again, this is not a particularly earth-shattering kind of issue, but it is a perfect illustration of the problems created when making whole-sale changes.

UPDATE:

I received an e-mail pointing out how I had mis-read the most recent edit; in fact, the newest version no longer specifies when the elections take place but does add the requirement for the offices.

It does go to show how technical the reading has to be. It must be frustrating to the committee -- because it is to me -- to try to keep track of all of the changes.

 

September 24, 2007: A few words about the study guide

Welcome to all of you who are coming from Presbyweb or the Layman. Thanks for the links. You are joining me midstream as I walk through the experience of evaluating the newly proposed Form of Government (the G- sections of the Book of Order).

Previous posts have highlighted some of the difficulties posed by doing a wholesale substitution to a constitutional document. (By the way, I am going to stop calling it a "revision" because it does more than revise; it is a re-write. The vote will be to replace the existing Form of Government with the new one.)

Today, just a few comments about the Study Outline For Sessions. The Task Force sent a letter to all sessions seeking thoughts and reviews of the proposed substitution.They provided an explanation and some questions to help sessions evaluate their work.

A Tough Task

First, it is difficult to imagine many sessions taking on the task. In some ways I feel sorry for my session here because I am going to make them work on this as a homework assignment for the next month.

In my experience Presbyterian elders have a limited understanding of the Book of Order. For most it functions like the Encyclopedia Brittanica -- you go there when you need to know how to do something particular or if you want to know if you can do something you want to do. You read the sections you need (and perhaps one or two in the neighborhood) but you do not spend a whole lot of time trying to know all of it. So, asking for a wholesale, big-picture review requires a commitment to learn what already is in place in order to understand what impact the changes would have.

Additionally, this version of the substitution is not the final draft. Changes will be made after this round. Because it requires technical reading, it will require this effort twice.

Let me explain it this way: it is like buying a new DVD player. You wrestled with your VCR and finally figured out some tricks to make it work. Now, none of those tricks work and you are back looking at the schematic diagram to figure out how it plugs into your television. But here's the twist: the manufacturer is going to recall your new DVD and send you a better one later. It will look different than the one you have now.

Look at my last post that I had to update and correct: after reading and re-reading it, I ended up reading something that was not there.

It's a tough task.

A Better Question

Second, the questions in the Study Outline pre-suppose a "yes" vote on the substitution. I understand that -- if I had been working hard on something of this magnitude, I would want people to like it and begin using it. However, it is an incomplete standard for evaluating a substitute constitution.

In an earlier post I mentioned that the function of a Form of Government is to define authority and explain how it is exercised. The current Book of Order does that. It has been amended (over and over) to make things more precise, to add things that were missing, and to delete things that were not helpful. Yes, it has grown in size, but that's inevitable as life is lived together.

The questions the Task Force asks involve how the substitute constitution would be "inspiring," "challenging," "useful," and "helpful." In short, can you see why this substitution would be good?

That's fine. It is important to evaulate whether the substitution would fulfill the purpose for which it is intended.

However, it is incomplete. The substitution is not being proposed for a newly-forming society. We have a multi-hundred year history that is reflected in the current Book of Order.

The better question is, "What could go wrong?"

Any time you look at legislation, any time you look at rules, any time you evaluate policies, this question must be raised.

Is that negative? Yes, but when you are looking at substituting a constitution, it is important to see the potential problems in addition to any benefit. Ambiguity and lack of clarity will create tension and dischord. The truth is this: if you can read a section to allow a result you will not want, you can be sure you will get the result you do not want.

A Couple Final Notes

I want to repeat a couple of things:

a. The Task Force is acting under a mandate from the previous General Assembly. They were commissioned to create this substitution. Their hard work is evident. The questions raised about the substitute constitution are entirely about whether it is a good idea. Will it enhance trust in an environment where trust is lacking? Will it bring about clarity and renewed purpose? Sometimes those questions need to be expressed in the negative; but that is a tool for evaluating the work, not the people who invested time and energy into creating the proposal.

b. This blog series is a walk through my experience of studying it. I cannot say that I have a comprehensive view of things right now; in fact, I can specifically state that I do not. I am writing because I believe that sharing my walk may help other people engage in the process.

c. I do not believe that the current Book of Order is perfect or perfected. I do believe it reflects who we are -- imperfect and imperfected. My initial impression is that the substitution would make the reflection fuzzier and less identifiable; it is more a statement of who we would hope we could be rather than who we are.

 

Well, I have avoided this as long as I can. Now, time to stick my toe in the pool -- to begin looking into the details of the Form of Government. It is one thing to gripe about changes to the Preliminary Principles and to note how those changes set the stage for some red flags I have seen in the body, but the details are what matter in a Form of Government.

Actually, I need to pause for just a few more moments in order to give some guidance for how I plan to proceed.

1. It is unrealistic to sound-byte this review; that is, to do a short paragraph evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of this substitute constitution. It also is unrealistic to expect anyone to read a full-blown, section-by-section review if written in one shot.

Good heavens, the side-by-side comparison produced by the Task Force is 170 pages long. It must have taken hours and hours for the Task Force to compile it. It is a helpful resource. It also is completely overwhelming. And, if I am overwhelmed by that, I suspect that it would make most people throw up their hands, giving up before even starting.

Here's where I discern my commitment and calling within this connectional church: I believe God calls each one of us to offer the best we have -- the gift we have received -- for the common good (I think I read that somewhere...). I am going to bite the bullet and try to tackle this thing in an effort to help make it accessible to everyone.

The trick is going to be taking it in small portions.

The substitute constitution has six chapters. I plan on spending a week on each chapter; covering specific aspects each day. It is my hope that it will make things more manageable to write and -- perhaps more importantly -- to read.

2. Even taking a week on each section, my review will not be exhaustive. Exhausting? Probably.

You likely will see things I miss. You likely will disagree with some of my reads and analysis. That's ok -- let me know.

3. I will try to keep the big picture in mind while focusing on how the details will play out if the substitute is approved. The substitute proposes a very different approach than the Form of Government we currently have. Those differences would have a significant impact on who we are

A New Understanding

So, with those things said, let me start with something found in the proposed G-1.0102, which may help illustrate the differences:

The organization rests upon the fellowship and is not designed to work without trust and love.

In the current Book of Order there is a parallel in G-7.0103. (See note for September 27)

Here, it refers to the fellowship of the congregation. However, it seems to be the predominant ethos throughout the whole: the substitute is not designed to work without trust and love.

It is the basis for the emphasis on "flexibility." The move to a more "flexible" structure was a prime objective of the Task Force. They sought to move away from restrictive, regulatory portions of the Book of Order.

This is a new understanding for Presbyterians.

Thinking to our historical roots, the Presbyterian Form of Government did not arise out of successful fellowship that had been managed with trust and love. It arose out of a protest against an abuse of power and trust. It was designed to check and limit authority given to any particular individual or council (most notably, a much-needed check on the authority wielded by clergy).

In other words, Presbyterian polity has always assumed the untrustworthiness of human nature. It sought to create trustworthiness by checking power through the use of intentional, planned inefficiency. It is less susceptible to corruption and abuse.

If approved the substitute would be a temporary remedy. The flexibility will last only as long as the trust lasts; as soon as there is a disagreement about an action or decision, the Permanent Judicial Commissions will get very busy or the FoG will be amended and grow again.

 

September 26, 2007: Starting at the beginning - G-1.0102, G-1.0301

As we evaulate sections of the proposed substitute constitution, we look to both:

a) what is it supposed to do; and,
b) what does it do it is not supposed to do?

Let's start near the beginning.

G-1.0102 The polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) presupposes the fellowship of women and men with their children in covenanted relationship with one another and with God through Jesus Christ. The organization rests upon the fellowship and is not designed to work without trust and love.

In our Book of Order G-7.0103 (see note for September 27)

What is it supposed to do?

The language here emphasizes the connectional and covenantal nature of the church. It is an expression of the "body of Christ" language of 1 Corinthians (and many other places).

What does it do it is not supposed to do?

There are several things to note here. I know as I write this it is going to sound petty and nit-picky; however, if we don't look at it now, we could be bound by it later.

1. "Presupposes."

"Presupposes" is not a good Form of Government word. It has no real meaning or clarity. What happens if the "presupposition" proves false? Does the rest of the Form of Government not apply?

The purpose of a Form of Government is to define authority and to explain how it is to be exercised. Ambiguity leads to confusion and conflict -- meaning "amendments" or PJC cases.

Also, it "presupposes" badly. The Church has a structure because Jesus is the head and is its authority, and has called us together -- it is not because we have chosen to be together. The only thing "presupposed" is the sovereignty of God expressed through "all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me" -- the ordering of his church according to his command.

2. "Fellowship of women and men with their children in covenanted relationship with one another."

The language here is awkward and could easily be interpreted to recognize and celebrate same-sex couples with children. If "women and men" is a consecutive list rather than a mandatory grouping, consider these alternate readings of the sentence:

The polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) presupposes the fellowship of women and their children in covenanted relationship with each other...

The polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) presupposes the fellowship of men and their children in covenanted relationship with each other...

Imagine you have two women (or two men, either way), with children from previous marriages, who talk to you about their living in a "covenant relationship" with each other. Does this polity presuppose that the pastor would be required to perform a baptism celebrating the covenant commitments of this couple?

Granting the benefit of the doubt, this is an illustration of the "law of unintended consequences." It is the first -- but, by no means the last -- time we will see this in the substitute constitution.

Membership and Baptism

Next:

G-1.0301 The Meaning of Membership and Baptism God calls women and men to faith in Jesus Christ and to membership in the church, the body of Christ. The incarnation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ gives to the church not only its mission, but also its understanding of membership. One becomes a member of the church through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and acceptance of his Lordship in all of life. Baptism and a public profession of faith in Jesus as Lord are the visible signs of God's call and claim on a human life and of entrance into the membership of the church. The baptism of children witnesses to the truth that God's love claims people before they are able to respond in faith. The baptism of those who enter the covenant of membership upon their own profession of faith witnesses to the truth that God's gift of grace calls for fulfillment in a response of faithfulness (W-2.3008b,c)

This is an expansion (almost twice as long) as G-5.0100, G-5.0101; and G-5.0102.

What is it supposed to do?

There is another section, G-1.0304, that details how a person becomes a member; thus, this is intended to provide an understanding of why we have members. And baptism.

What does it do it is not supposed to do?

1. It lengthens, rather than shortens the section.

2. It confuses.

These are two different concepts lumped into one section. They are related -- but different. There is a definition of membership, then an incomplete discussion of the meaning of baptism.

For example, do the parents have no part in the covenant of baptism when they present their child? According to this section, the only meaning of infant/children baptism is to witness "to the truth that God's love claims people before they are able to respond in faith." That's it.

Is it?

In each section I am reviewing, I am looking at three things:

1. Where are the parallels cited by the committee for the section (what is this supposed to replace);
2. What is the section supposed to do; and,
3. What does it do that it is not supposed to do?

When I wrote, "This is not in our Book of Order" or "This does not have a parallel in our Book of Order," I meant that the side-by-side parallel produced by the committee did not list these sections or parallels (or, if they had, I did not see them and they were somewhere else in the 170 pages).

As it turns out, I was using the wrong key to figure out the parallels in the side-by-side. I thought the substitute constitution ordered the side-by-side; instead, the current Book of Order is the ordering. The parallels I missed were items currently in G-7 that were moved up front.

Their order makes sense and my error was just that: my error. Welcome to the pitfalls of writing as I am learning.

As one astute reader pointed out, in the September 25 update, sections about which I inaccurately and incorrectly wrote, "This is not in our Book of Order" do have parallels in the current Book of Order.

My error led to my confusing him and misleading you. For that I apologize.

For what it is worth, I think the analyses provided for those sections are still valid for two reasons:

1. Rearranging changes structure and meaning. The same words in a different order stress different things.

2. The rearranging and editing have the stated intention to create flexibility -- flexibility which I believe is designed to be achieved through intentional ambiguity.

The invitation from the Task Force was to evaluate this as a substitute constitution in order to identify and address problems and potential problems before it is presented for an up-or-down, yes/no vote. As a result the tone of much of this analysis is going to be negative.

On the one hand, you want to read the best into the work. The "what is this supposed to do" section is my attempt to quickly summarize the positive.
On the other hand, I also have given the worst possible read because -- if we are going to wipe the slate clean with a new substitute constitution -- we have to weigh in how the words could be interpreted.

There is no small irony in the fact that one of the sections I erroneously messed up was one talking about how "the organization rests upon the fellowship and is not designed to work without trust and love." G-7.0103.

I am manifesting distrust of the organization. Unfortunately, some of that distrust has been earned.

 

First this morning are several links from this past weekend that are interesting to me:

1. Presbynews is reporting that the General Assembly Council is recommending that the Form of Government Task Force seek an extension for study and feedback. The two year extension is basically a move to postpone the debate until the following General Assembly in 2010. The sub-head is the interesting part of this story: "GAC fears revisions may fail because of lack of understanding, trust."
   
   
2. Jim Berkley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy has a review of the Form of Government Task Force's report to the General Assembly Council which highlights several of the major changes. Jim has a nice way of distilling issues. He also has incredible fortitude in order to be able to sit at these multi-day-long meetings as an observer.

A pertinent question

My friend Bob Dooling sent me the following letter which raises a pertinent question: would the proposed Foundation section be a "super-constitution"?

Bob:

Last week at lunch, a friend asked a question about the proposed FOG that I think is pretty significant. Unfortunately, however, I didn’t have a ready answer.

He asked if I thought that the Task Force will have unintentionally planted what amounts to a ticking “time bomb” into the Constitution by placing a “Foundations” document in front of Chapter one of the FOG.   

His question went something like this – given the sequence of the two documents isn’t it likely that someone will eventually argue that the “Foundations” section is a kind of “super constitution” that controls everything that follows.  And, won’t others inevitably construe its very title – “Foundations” – to mean precisely the same thing?  And, if such a theory were to be upheld, wouldn’t it be logical to argue that if certain parts of the FOG were to be found to be inconsistent with the “Foundations,” the inconsistencies would have to be declared to be unconstitutional? 

Let me be more specific.  Many of us think that “fidelity and chastity” should remain a standard for ordination to church office.  That standard, of course, is currently codified in G-6.0106b. Further, our courts have found that while sections of our current Constitution (i.e. G-4.0402 and G-40403) properly call for openness to and inclusiveness of the rich diversity within our membership, those sections do not override the more restrictive provisions of G-6.  That is to say, the inevitable tensions in our Constitution do not invalidate each other, but must be held in some kind of creative tension.

This understanding was confirmed in Londonderry v. Presbytery of Northern New England in 2001.  The case was brought because the Presbytery accepted the argument of Christ Church, Burlington (VT) that it was proper to ordain “self-affirming, practicing, homosexuals” because the prohibition in G-6.0106b was irreconcilably in conflict with the requirement of inclusivity found elsewhere in the Constitution. In its decision, the GAPJC said:

It is not unusual for a document such as our Constitution, written at different periods of time and under different circumstances, to exhibit tensions and ambiguities in its provisions. Nevertheless, it is the task of governing bodies and judicial commissions to resolve them in such a way as to give effect to all provisions (emphasis mine).  It is not within the power of any governing body or judicial commission to declare a properly adopted provision of the Constitution to be invalid. The only appropriate avenue to change or remove a provision of the Constitution is through the process for amendment provided within the Constitution itself.

But, if the “Foundations” paper were ever to be found to be controlling of the FOG, several sections of F- 3.03, for example, could theoretically be used to invalidate “fidelity and chastity” without any input from the Presbyteries.

I may be borrowing trouble by asking these questions, and I am neither implying, nor do I think, that there is some kind of grand conspiracy going on.  But, wouldn’t it be wise for us to request that the Task Force resolve any potential problems by stating clearly and precisely, and in the documents themselves, what the exact relationship between the “Foundations” paper and the FOG is?  And, doesn’t the fact that G-6.051 will prevent any amendment of the “Foundations” section for six years following its adoption make this request even more pressing? 

Your brother in Christ,

Bob Dooling

 

Three quick hits to conclude the review of Chapter 1 of the proposed substitute constitution:

• G-1.0303b: Members' self-review;
  
• The elimination of "inactive" member status; and,
  
• G-1.0503e: lodging all administrative responsibility in the session.

Members' Self-Review

G-1.0303b is a subtle change and perhaps not huge, but it highlights something worth considering:

Currently:

G-5.0501c Accepting the privilege and responsibility of membership in the church is a commitment to Jesus Christ that binds the individual to fulfillment of the obligations of membership. Members shall, when encouraged by the session, regularly review and evaluate the integrity with which they are involved in the ministry of the church and consider ways in which their participation in the worship and service of the church may be increased and made more meaningful.

Substitute Constitution proposed:

G-1.0303b. Members shall regularly review and evaluate the integrity with which they are involved in the ministry of the church and consider ways in which their participation in the worship and service of the church may be increased and made more meaningful.

I have added the emphasis. Aside from deleting the introductory sentence, the difference is the elimination of the clause "when encouraged by the session."

The practical impact of this change is to make members subject to disciplinary proceedings as the first step when anyone else determines that a member has not "regularly reviewed and evaluted the integrity with which they are involved in the ministry of the church." (What is regularly? What constitutes a review and evaluation? What defines integrity of involvement?)

Of course you may say, "That's ridiculous. No one's going to do that!" Well, either they will and it is a problem or they won't and the language is meaningless.

As it currently exists, the session is to exercise responsibility to be the spiritual leadership of the congregation. That responsibility includes "encouraging" members who have fallen down in their responsibilities. The current language encourages community accountability akin to the third mark of the True Kirk identified in the Scots Confession, "ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue is nourished." (Book of Confessions, 3.18)

Do we trust in the goodness of the individual to abide, or are we relational and hold each other accountable? Which better reflects our theology?

The elimination of "inactive" member status

True confession time: I cannot say that I have effectively utilized the "inactive" member status as a tool to aggressively seek out those who have fallen away. (Perhaps undercutting what I have just written above? Or, serving as the illustration of how we cannot be trusted on our own?)

That said, we have used the inactive member status to provide a bond with people who have moved away but are still emotionally attached. They receive the monthly newsletter, the directory, and they remain on the list as our staff prays through the congregation. If the change is made, this ongoing ministry is lost.

If the "inactive" status is eliminated, we actually lose the flexibility that the current Book of Order allows.

G-1.0503e Lodging all administrative responsibility in the session

This one is similar to the "members' review" earlier in this post. This section deals with business to be conducted at a congregational meeting. The list in this section is prefaced by, "Business to be transacted at meetings of the congregation shall be limited to matters relating to the following:"

Currently:

G-7.0304a.(5) matters related to the permissive powers of a congregation, such as the desire to lodge all administrative responsibility in the session, or the request to presbytery for exemption from one or more requirements because of limited size.

Substitute constitution proposed:

G-1.0503e deciding to lodge all administrative responsibility in the session, or to request from presbytery an exemption from one or more requirements because of limited size.

By itself, this would not be a change that raises red flags for me. If you have gotten this far in this post, though, you can see the impact that change in language has on practical ministry.

The substitute constitution language could be read to require the decision to lodge all administrative responsibility. Under the current language, that decision is specifically identified as a permissive power, and the decision is discretionary.

Could the substitute constitution be read as allowing discretion? Yes. Could it be read as not allowing discretion? Yes.

It would not be a problem until you got to a congregational meeting in a situation where there is conflict involving the session; you can bet that one of the session members would defend their actions by saying that the session has the authority to do something because the Book of Order limits the congregation's options in administrative matters.

Chapter 2 of the substitute constitution involves "ordered ministry, commissioning, and certification." Given that this is where many of the most highly-contested sections of the Book of Order can be found, it is interesting to note how the Task Force handled it.

Ordination Standards

First, G-6.0106 (a and b). Many people who are going to evaluate the substitute constitution are going to look here first, "Did they change anything?"

No.

They did not change anything. And that may be the problem.

This is not trickery on the part of the Task Force; rather, it is an inevitable result of the limitations imposed by the General Assembly.

There is a footnote that reads as follows:

"The task force was directed by the 217th General Assembly (2006) not to alter the current wording in G-6.0106b. Elsewhere in this proposed Form of Government, we have specified "ruling elder" in place of "elder," as used here, and have used "ordered ministry" in place of "office."

What's the big deal? Two things:

1. The change in language in other places -- but not here -- creates an ambiguity. The argument could be made that the effect of this change is that self-avowed, unrepentant, practicing homosexual persons can be elected and installed as "presbyters" -- "ruling elders" or "teaching elders" or one or the other -- because "presbyters" would be somehow different than "elder" as understood in the current language of G-6.0106.

It would be naive to suggest that this argument would not be used. Remember, the parsing of the definition of "chastity" came to include the notion that having sexual relations with a single same-sex partner was consistent with being chaste.

The task force anticipated this potential; thus, the footnote. However,...

2. Footnotes are not binding. They are helpful, they are explanatory, they are not binding. Thus, should a Permanent Judicial Commission in, say -- oh, where could we pick? -- Redwoods Presbytery decide to make a test case out of this, we're off to the races in the PJC's again. Uncertainty abounds.

This just illustrates how difficult it is to introduce a system based on trust in an environment that has manifest so many examples where trust is betrayed.

Overall

Taking a step back to look at the bigger picture involved in Chapter 2, there is an admirable effort to simplify several complicated processes. Sessions and candidates for ministry and presbytery committees all have lamented the difficulties involved with understanding the appropriate steps in the processes.

It is worth remembering that the presbyteries just approved amendments to Chapter 14 of the current Form of Government to try to help simplify the process.

Over the next several days, we will look through some of the rest of Chapter 2 to see what impact the changes will make.

 

As we saw yesterday, the substitute constitution's proposed change from "elders" to "presbyters" could have a big impact on the denomination's understanding of ordination standards.

The move to "presbyters" is defined in the substitute constitution's G-2.0102 "Ordered Minstries" section. Here again, a comparison of language will highlight a major substantive change that would result:

Current:

T h e government of this church is representative, and the right of God’s people to elect their officers is inalienable. Therefore, no person can be placed in any permanent office in a congregation or governing body of the church except by election of that body.

Proposed:

The government of this church is representative, and the right of God's people to elect presbyters and deacons is inalienable. Therefore, no person can be placed in any ordered ministry in a congregation or council of the church except by election of that body.

This would have a profound impact on all the New Wineskins property cases. It would undo one of the first steps recommended by the Louisville Papers -- appointing an administrative commission to take original jurisdiction of the session.

In the current language of the Book of Order, presbyteries have the authority to appoint administrative commissions because they are not intended to fill permanent offices. Administrative commissions are, by their very commissioning, temporary and limited in scope and purpose. However, under the new proposed language, administrative commissions are impermissible because the congregation or council of the church would not have elected them -- not even temporarily. It is an absolute bar.

 

October 11, 2007: Renunciation of Jurisdiction

As we continue looking at the proposed substitute Form of Government, we are take a look at one of the lesser known -- but highly important -- features: renunciation of jurisdiction. 

Renunciation of jurisdiction is an something that no one wants to happen. It is an action by an individual to separate himself/herself from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It says, "I am not a part of you, I no longer recognize your authority over me."

Most times the individual is the one making the affirmative statement. However, both the current and the proposed Forms of Government anticipate the situation where governing bodies (or now councils) could discern san individual (whether Minister of the Word and Sacrament, Elder, or Deacon) by his/her conduct makes clear that they have, in fact, renounced jurisdiction.

For example: persistent, active, open defiance of "shall" or "shall not" provisions of the Constitution are an indication that someone is not intending to play by the rules. The ability and authority of the governing body to make this determination is a crucial element of exercising ecclesiastical discipline (nourishing virtue and discouraging vice).

Root of distrust

It has been the inability and unwillingness of governing bodies to declare that someone's persistent defiant conduct is a renunciation of jursidiction that has caused the distrust of the system to take root.

Let me give you one very specific example: trust was lost when Steven Van Kuiken won the appeal at the Synod level overturning the finding and rebuke for his intentional defiance performing ceremonies he called same-sex marriages (after specific instruction by Cincinnati Presbytery to cease performing them). His behavior was the very definition of a renunciation of jurisdiction; yet, he used the procedural protections afforded by the Constitution to continue his defiance.

Now, instead of strengthening the authority of governing bodies (or councils), the proposed substitute Form of Government imposes additional hoops for councils to jump through in order to come to a decision that -- if precedent is any indicator -- may or may not be upheld.

Ok, here are the specifics:

Current:

G-6.0702 When a church officer, after consultation and notice, persists in a work disapproved by the governing body having jurisdiction, the governing body may presume that the officer has renounced the jurisdiction of this church.

Proposed:

G-2.0210 When a ruling elder or deacon persists in work disapproved by the session, the session shall consult with him or her and shall give notice of its disapproval. If, after having been provided opportunity for consultation and upon written notice of its disapproval, the ruling elder or deacon persists in the work, the session may then conclude that the ruling elder or deacon has renounced the jurisdiction of this church.

and:

G-2.0308b When a minister of the Word and Sacrament persists in work disapproved by the presbytery having jurisdiction, the presbytery shall consult with the minister and shall give notice of its disapproval. If after having been provided opportunity for consultation and upon written notice of its disapproval, the minister of the Word and Sacrament persists in the work, the presbytery may then conclude that he or she has renounced the jurisdiction of this church.

Why add protections for the one in defiance? The disapproval notice must now be written; on appeal, no doubt, there additionally will have to be a "proof of service" of the written notice indicating that the individual personally received it.

Although it is probably a good idea to have the notice written, why add the requirement? Imagine the presbytery meeting where the action item regarding a minister of Word and Sacrament's persisting in a work disapproved by the presbytery comes to the floor. Discussion is held during which the individual explains (or is offered the opportunity to explain) the reasons for persisting in the work. A vote is taken. The presbytery disapproves of the work and instructs the Moderator to order the person to stop.

Does the Moderator's verbal order take effect at that point? Does it take effect only if the Moderator writes the order and hands it to the person? Or, does it take effect when the Minutes of the meeting are approved (in some cases, months later)? Again, why add procedural burdens to accountability -- it is not as if there are not already sufficient protections in place. If there is a question about the process, a remedial case challenging the action of the governing body is always possible.

And, if we are actually going to re-write the Form of Government to enhance trust, why couldn't it be written that "if after having been provided opportunity for consultation and upon notice of its disapproval, the (ruling elder or deacon [in G-2.0210] or minister of the Word and Sacrament [in G-2.0308]) persists in the work, the [jurisdiction] shall then declare that he or she has renounced the jurisdiction of the church." What possible reason could there be for harboring someone who continually persists in overtly defying the jurisdiction's authority? How does that build trust?

 

Boy, is it difficult to sustain interest and energy for this project. Please do not read that as a condemnation of the Task Force -- the group that put together the substitute constitution took on a huge task.

That said, it is important to evaluate the substance of the proposal on its own merits without reference to how much time, energy, and resources have been spent to produce it. If it stands on its own, it stands; if it does not, it should not be approved because we feel badly for those who worked hard on it.

Just a reminder: when evaluating changes to a Constitution, you have analyze both:

a. What is it supposed to do?

b. What does it do that it is not supposed to do? (Unintended consequences)

Most of the analysis here has been focused on the second question. There is a reason why: if approved by a General Assembly (whether the 218th (2008) or 219th (2010)), the question will go to the presbyteries as, "Shall the substitute constitution become the Form of Government," making what currently exist a relic for the Historical Society.

When I finish going through the six chapters, I plan on addressing two "big picture" questions:

1. Is the substitute constitution -- problems and all -- better than what currently exists?

2a. If the answer to #1 is "no," can the problems be fixed to make it better?

or

2b. If the answer to #1 is "yes," what problems can be identified and fixed to make it better before it is adopted?

Back to Chapter 2

G-2.0302 Validated Ministries.

Validated ministries include things like "teachers, evangelists, administrators, chaplains, and in other forms of ministry recognized as appropriate by the presbytery." (G-6.0203 current; G-3.0307 substitute).

Kudos to the Task Force for highlighting the changes they have made to in this area. (See page 6, here) I would not have spotted this unless they pointed it out.

Validated ministries have been a hot topic of conversation in the last several years. Two names may suffice to illustrate: Katie Morrison and Parker Williamson.

In September, 2001, Redwoods Presbytery validated the ministry position of "field representative" for the More Light Network, "a network of people seeking the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA)." Into that position, Redwoods Presbytery approved the examination of Katie Morrison who, by her own words, was a self-avowed, unrepentant, practicing homosexual person. Remedial challenges to those decisions were denied on procedural grounds.

In 2002, Parker Williamson, now the Editor Emeritus of the Presbyterian Layman, was denied renewal of the validation of his ministry by Western North Carolina Presbytery, leading to a reversal by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.

What Change?

In the introductory material for the substitute constitution, the Task Force wrote this regarding the validated ministry section (G-2.0302 in the substitute):

This section adds to the list of required functions of validated ministries that of the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. This is a step beyond the requirements of curent G-11.0403, which makes no reference to the Sacraments. The task force reasoned here that the ministry in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a ministry of the Word and Sacrament, and thus it is reasonable to expect that ministers in validated calls should be engaged in some way in proclaiming the Word of God and administering the Sacraments. The presbytery is left to determine how to interpret this provision, but task force conversation suggested that most presbyteries have several congregations without installed pastors where pastors in non-validated ministries might provide occasional preaching and sacramental leadership. (emphasis in original)

Here is a good example of two things going on at once: clarity to address mistrust and flexibility to allow for wide interpretation.

Personally, I think the idea to add this clarification is good. Then, the Task Force's comment, "the presbytery is left to determine how to interpret this provision," just undercuts what they tried to accomplish. What does an undefined "shall" mean? It just sets it up for a disagreement resulting in either a PJC case or a later amendment.

For example, does someone ordained as a minister of Word and Sacrament whose ministry is a private Christian counseling practice actually have to preach and administer the Sacraments in congregational worship?

Does teaching in a classroom count as proclamation of the Word? If so, how does a teacher baptize or administer the Lord's Supper?

Will presbyteries then become characterized by holding multiple worship services on meeting days in order to provide opportunities for validated ministers in administrative positions to fill those requirements? The answer to those questions will impact the individual's right to voice and vote at presbytery. Does shall mean shall or is there wiggle room implied in the interpretation?

 

I have gotten bogged down in Chapter 2 of the substitute constitution. The problem is that it takes a good amount of time to track things through -- one section impacts several others.

For example, G-2.09 of the substitute deals with Certified Christian Educators.

Here's the thing: most of us are still using the 2005-2007 brick color covered Book of Order because the 2007-2009 version is still being printed. The new one is available on-line and it is the one that is binding. So, what's the big deal? All three are different.

From the substitute:

G-2.0902 Presbytery and Christian Education The presbytery shall encourage Christian educators to seek certification, shall encourage sessions to make continuing education funds and time available to educators seeking certification, and shall provide a service of recognition at the time of certification. The presbytery may grant the privilege of the floor at all its meetings to all certified Christian educators and voice and vote to certified Christian educators who are ordained ruling elders.

From the 2007-2009 Book of Order:

G-14.0703 Presbytery and Certified Christian Educators The presbytery shall... c. grant the privilege of the floor to the certified Christian educator at all its meetings with voice only, and, in the case of certified Christian educators who are ordained elders, voice and vote under the provisions of G-11.0101b. (G-11.0407)

The bold indicates that the section is new -- an amendment approved by the presbyteries after the 217th General Assembly in 2006. (Italics are mine to illustrate a point in a moment.)

From the 2005-2007 Book of Order:

G-14.0705 c. The presbytery shall grant the privilege of the floor to the Certified Christian Educator at all its meetings with voice. (G-11.0407)

This is the kind of thing that drives polity people crazy. In 2005-2007, presbyteries were mandated to grant the privilege of the floor to Certified Christian Educators with voice only privileges. They could be recognized to speak, but did not have a vote.

In 2007-2009, presbyteries were mandated to grant the privilege of the floor to Certified Christian Educators with voice only -- except in the case of Certified Christian Educators who also were ordained elders, for whom voice and vote were now mandated Ok, that's a change, but that is how it was amended.

In the proposed substitute constitution, Certified Christian Educators may or may not be granted any privilege of the floor. They may or may not be granted with voice and/or vote rights. Nothing is guaranteed.

Did you ever wonder why it is difficult to get a quick or straight answer from a stated clerk? This is like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.

Other things in passing

Chapter 3 is where the most significant changes are proposed, so I am only going to mention, without much explanation, some other items worth investigating later (if time allows):

• G-2.0410 Exceptions. This provision allows for exceptions in the ordination process for ministers of Word and Sacrament. "By a 3/4 vote, a presbytery may waive any of the requirements for ordination in G-2.04 except for those of G-2.0407d (passing the ord exams)." In the Introduction material, the Task Force says that the current G-6.0106 standards are not subject to exception (apparently because it is in G-2.0104). Given the "flexibility" and "trust" intended in the substitute constitution, will the presbytery's authority to waive requirements be extended beyond G-2.04? Stay tune to your local PJC to find out!
  
  
• The new substitute eliminates the distinctions between designated, temporary supply, stated supply, and interim ministers. (G-2.0304). For consideration: it does allow a "temporary pastor" to become the next installed pastor (or associate pastor) if 3/4 of the presbytery approves.
  
  
• The new substitute follows the recent amendments extending the minimum time for an individual to move through the process seeking ordination; mandating a minimum of two years. (G-2.0402) This has an impact in my congregation where we have taken under care a seminary graduate who is working as a chaplain in a hospice ministry. She was taken under care of the presbytery's Committe on Preparation for Ministry prior to the enacting of the new amendments; thus, she is eligible to have a shorter Inquiry phase and still comply with the requirement for a full year for candidacy.
  
  
• The new substitute requires commissioned lay pastors (called commissioned pastors) to be supervised by the presbytery, where the older rules allowed a commissioned lay pastor to be accountable to a pastor in a local congregation. (G-2.0804)

Other sections I did not even look to evaluate:

 

G-2.0401 - G-2.0409 discernment process for ministry

G-2.0503 (other than noting that W-4.400 describes elements rather than enumerating an outline for the service; thus making a "shall" rather difficult to follow)

G-2.06 Call process for a pastor; and

G-2.07Dissolution of pastoral relationships.

Chapter 3 of the substitute constitution is where the major changes have taken place.

It is entitled "Councils of the Church" and covers sessions, presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly. In the current Book of Order,

• G-9 = governing bodies generally
• G-10 = the session
• G-11 = the presbytery
• G-12 = the synod
• G-13 = the General Assembly.

The reasoning for the change is to move from a "regulatory model" to a "missional" model.

The change from the current Book of Order would be significant because it would leave nebulous the answer to the question, "or else what?"

The substitute presumes that a change in polity will be able to move us to a place where the "or else what?" question is unnecessary -- and herein lies the very flaw that will make it unsupportable. There are already many people who are suspect about the denomination's ability to stand for something (and some who are absolutely certain that the denomination stands for everything, and therefore nothing).

The substitute is basically a re-statement of the "doctrine divides, mission unites" approach of the Auburn Affirmation.

The Presbyterian News Service has taken an active role in trying to promote the recent mission-ality of the denomination, doing more than a dozen stories about denominational missions and missionaries in the last two and a half weeks.

The problem is that pesky "third mark" of the true church (Scots Confession, 3.18): whereby vice is repressed and virtue is nourished. In other words: ecclesiastical discipline or accountability.

Or. Else. What?

Without accountability (here, perceived as "regulatory"), there is no reasonable expectation that mission efforts would be united. Is the purpose of mission to share the "good news of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior and Lord" (which language you will remember was eliminated in the Foundations section) or is it simply to do good things like pursue justice and compassion?

What's the difference? Sharing the good news of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior and Lord necessarily includes pursuing justice and compassion; pursuing justice and compassion does not necessarily include sharing the good news of salvation. Doctrine divides, mission unites; right?

So, as we begin to go through the "missional" structure of the substitute constitution, we will be paying particular attention to if and how church discipline (regulatory) is addressed.

 

As we get into Chapter 3 of the proposed substitute constitution, we immediately come across the flexibility that the Task Force sought to implement.

G-3.0107 Administration of Mission Mission determines the forms and structures needed for the church to do its work. Administration is the process by which a council implements decisions. All administration should enable the church to give effective witness in the world to the new reality of God in Jesus Christ. Administration of mission should be performed by the council nearest the congregation that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it. Councils more inclusive than the session may provide examples of policies and procedures that may be gathered into advisory handbooks. These examples illumine practices required by the Constitution but left to councils for specific implementation. Such handbooks may also offer information that enhances or secures the ministry of the particular council. Each council shall develop a manual of administrative operations that will specify the form and guide the work of mission in that body.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I started to read this and found myself thinking of Charlie Brown's teacher. Or of trying to hear underwater. Or of the picture of someone with a book open on the chest, sound asleep.

The problem is that a quick read would not note the significance of the change being made. Here is what it replaces:

G-9.0402a Mission determines the form of structure and administration. All structures should enable the church to give effective witness to the Lordship of Christ in the contemporary world.

The question is, why the change? "Giving witness to the Lordship of Christ in the contemporary world" talks about the relationship of the risen Jesus Christ to the world. Jesus is Lord. "Giving witness to the new reality of God in Jesus Christ," does that necessarily mean Jesus is Lord? Maybe, maybe not. Flexibility yields ambiguity.

A digression to make the point

Let me explain this in a digression: I am teaching a class in my congregation about the Essential Tenets and Reformed Distinctives document San Diego Presbytery approved several years ago. I use word problems (available elsewhere on this site) to help promote discussion of how real life is theological activity. Here are a few excerpts from my syllabus:

When we ordain officers in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), one of the questions we ask is whether individuals “sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?”

We expect a “yes” answer.

The problem is not in getting a “yes” answer, but rather in helping people to identify what are those essential tenets of the Reformed faith that they have received and adopted.

Why do this? Several reasons:

• It’s important to practice thinking theologically. It’s not something that comes naturally to people. It’s not something that we are particularly accustomed to doing.
  
  
• It’s important to practice thinking theologically together. We are more accustomed to avoid discussing things theologically because “everyone has a right to their own opinion” or “everyone interprets Scripture differently” or “who am I to tell someone else how to think about things?” The problem is that when a real issue comes along, we are extremely uncomfortable dealing with it because we don’t know how others will respond. By practicing now, we give ourselves tools to be able to deal with real issues when they come along – and they will.
  
  
• It’s important to practice bearing witness. One of the things I observe during periods of crisis or disaster is how many people are asked to articulate their faith. If you have not practiced, if you have not thought these issues through, it is difficult to respond.
  
  
• It’s a faithful thing to do. Remembering who God is and who we are is really important. Practicing thinking theologically takes time and it requires some discipline – which, not coincidentally, is what being a disciple is all about.

Some groundrules:

1. Do not expect to agree with everything that is said in class. Expect to disagree with some – and use that feeling to engage the material. If you disagree but can’t say why, it is an indication that some more digging would be worthwhile.
   
   
2. Watch for the consequences that follow taking a stand on the issues presented.
   
   
3. Do not expect easy answers to be given. No one can do the work of faith for you.

It is the first groundrule here that is important: flexibility and ambiguity assume we all believe the same thing. Our recent history has shown this is not accurate. Thus, when the Lordship of Christ is changed to something less clear, it is making a theological statement.

Mandated giving

Later in the same G-3.0107, the following is provided:

Presbyteries shall be responsible for raising their own funds and for raising and timely transmission of requested funds to their respective synods and the General Assembly.

It replaces:

G-9.0404d Each governing body above the session shall prepare a budget for its operating expenses, including administrative personnel, and may fund it with a per capita apportionment among the particular churches within its bounds. The presbyteries shall be responsible for raising their own per capita funds, and for raising and timely transmission of per capita funds to their respective synods and to the General Assembly. The presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments to the sessions of the churches within their bounds.

How do you read the new proposal? "Presbyteries shall be responsible for ...raising and timely transmission of requested funds to their respective synods and the General Assembly." In other words, synod and the General Assembly has taxing authority over the presbyteries.

There is no distinction between per capita and mission funding in this section. General Assembly and synods request, and the presbyteries shall be responsible for raising and timely transmission of the requested funds.

How about that?