I spend a considerable amount of time working with our current Book of Order. When people unfamiliar with what is in our current Form of Government call me (and I get a couple of calls a week from around the country), they are usually surprised at how easy and clear is our Constitution.

I reviewed the report prepared by the new Form of Government Task Force to the 218th General Assembly (2008) here, here, here, and here. It would not and could not accomplish what was promised — to help us by providing a more missional polity. The proposal would actually make us less missional because it would require exponentially more administrative wrangling to figure out policies and procedures at every level.  I made a substitute motion at the last assembly to disapprove and dismiss the Task Force. It did not prevail. Instead, it was sent back for more work and reflection.

So, here we are again. There is a new, new Form of Government report making recommendations (nFoG II) to the 219th General Assembly. There are revisions to the text that was presented to the 218th General Assembly (2008), but it is substantially the same idea with slightly revised repackaging. It still will not and cannot accomplish what is promised. It is still my opinion that what we currently have is better, more functional, and more missional than what is being proposed in the nFoG II. We ought to disapprove the nFoG II, dismiss the Task Force, and move on.

That’s my starting point.

The Task Force is not likely to agree. I will leave it to them to speak in favor — and I am aware that they have the process in place to do so. But remember: to approve nFoG II would be to send it out for a straight yes/no vote to the presbyteries. Is it worth sending this product — as is — out to the presbyteries? If not, why waste the time of the presbyteries to vote no? There is something for everyone to not like in the nFoG II.

It is difficult to know where to begin describing the myriad, almost endless, arguments against approving the nFoG II. Let’s try this:

1. nFoG II is theologically and structurally flawed beyond repair. Don’t take my word for it, consider the entities that are lined up opposing approval as written: San Diego (overture disallowed thus far, but still reflects a one-abstention-short-of- unanimous vote to disapprove), Mississippi (moved out of the nFoG committee’s business), and Chicago — and that’s not an exhaustive list, but it covers a pretty wide swath of the denomination theologically. Then, there is the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (1. Loss of current interpretive history of the Form of Government, 2. Lack of due process requirements, and, 3. Impact of shifting constitutional language and requirements to “Manuals of Operation”). Other entities are pre-emptively seeking to amend it:  GACOR, Western Reserve Presbytery, Huntingdon Presbytery, and San Fernando Presbytery. If it is not ready, it is not ready to be approved.

2. You cannot approve what you have not read. Seriously. You cannot vote yes without understanding what it is you are being asked to approve, what it would replace, and what are the unintended consequences likely to result by making the change. If you do not have an intimate working knowledge of our current Book of Order, you will have to rely — trust — the Task Force that the sunny picture they paint is real. That picture is not real. One look at our current situation tells you it is not.

3. We should not move into nFoG II on the hopes that we will suddenly act on a foundation of trust. We set up accountability structures because we believe we are sinners. The cases currently proceeding through our disciplinary process show that we do not abide by the standards we set. If we do not abide by our word, we are not trustworthy. Yes, our current system includes similar statements about trust, but our behavior and history are case-in-point illustrations of how we need to balance trust and accountability. The nFoG II is long on trust and short on accountability.

4. We cannot believe that nFoG II will be any more trustworthy when the Task Force will not abide by the rules. This is a pretty hard statement to make and is likely to draw some fire. But here’s the deal — the Task Force is proceeding in a manner consistent with the larger denomination. They want the Assembly to approve rules when they are not willing to abide by the rules themselves. Let me give you two examples:

a. There are 5 hours and 45 minutes of official business meeting of Committee 7 on Friday, July 2. Remember, the commissioners and advisory delegates are not official or commissioned until the convening of the Assembly on Saturday, July 3. Why is this important? Because this meeting just rolls over the rights of another group of official participants — Overture Advocates. Standing Rule E.2.e.(4) provides

(4) Overture advocates and signers of commissioners’ resolutions (see below in this standing rule) who shall be entitled to speak when the overture or resolution or response to the referral of an overture is first considered by the committee; and then shall have the same privilege of the floor as other persons with special expertise listed in Standing Rule E.2.e.(3) [Persons with special expertise, including elected members or staff members of General Assembly entities -- read here, the Form of Government Task Force] above;

Overture advocates are not going to be heard until Sunday. That means there are going to be official business meetings and Riverwalk conversations where the Form of Government Task Force is going to have unrestricted opportunity to advocate outside the scope of the rules. Trust us?  If they will not abide by the rules and protect the rights of those with whom they disagree, how can we trust the product they are recommending to do better?

b. The action of the last Assembly to generate nFoG II included this: “The new task force will revise the Form of Government Task Force Report, taking into account the concerns and suggestions gleaned from the consultation and study process.” To-date there has been no written report released of what concerns and suggestions were made in the midst of the consultation and study process; there has been no accountability for how those concerns and suggestions were addressed; and how communication back was given to those who participated. Trust us? If they will not share the full report of all the concerns and suggestions, are we to presume there were no comments? All comments were favorable? Do you really imagine that we would not have heard all about the positive reviews had there been a number of them?

You may have noticed that I have not given much of a critique of the substance of what is in nFoG II. The problems it would create are endless: every level of “council” would be required to create “manuals”, presbyteries would be required to serve as collection agents to tax congregations for budgets set by higher governing bodies nFoG II 3.0106, and so on. There are other resources if you need additional analysis of the shortcomings of specific sections in nFoG II: here, here, and here are examples. And they are nicer in tone than this post.

In closing, let me ask you this question: less than a month away from the second General Assembly to which the nFoG has been recommended, why is there no substantial outcry in favor of the nFoG II as it is written? The original draft was posted in 2007. If it was something that the larger church wanted, shouldn’t there be clamoring for it to be approved at some point in those three years? The silence is deafening.

Assembly Committee #5: Church Polity will handle all matters “related to: amendments to Chapters I, III–V, VII–VIII, XII–XIV, XVI–XVIII of the Form of Government with Advisory Committee on the Constitution advice; requests for interpretation; amendments to the Rules of Discipline with Advisory Committee on the Constitution advice. Advisory Committee on Litigation.” Those are the G- sections of the Book of Order.

This committee is a good illustration of the ongoing flow of reading material. In mid-May, there were only 11 items posted; three weeks later, 29 items plus all the synod minutes. Start your reading with the synod minutes….just kidding. (If you click on those, you will see that the minutes will be provided to committee at the Assembly.)

The business here is almost like a potpourri category on Jeopardy.

“I’ll take Church Polity for $100, Alex.”

The answer, “Commissioned Lay Pastors.”

The question, “Should the role of CLP’s be expanded dramatically?” Correct!

Items 05-03 and 05-04 are overtures from two different presbyteries seeking to define new roles, privileges and responsibilities for commissioned lay pastors. The first would create a “CLP at-large” category; the second would open up CLP’s for validated ministries. Leslie Scanlon of the Presbyterian Outlook posted an article in mid-April talking about CLP’s generally and the responses to that article help detail some of the issues involved.

Church Polity for $200.

Answer: “Illustrations why the proposed new Form of Government (nFoG) will not change the character or culture of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).”

Question: “What are:

• Items 05-01, adding new language to D-6.0101 and D-10.0101 to require an additional paperwork statement prior to filing a case that avers, “what efforts have been made to fulfill the biblical obligation to conciliate, mediate, and adjust differences.” In other words, when a presbytery makes an irregular decision or fails to do something it is required to do, the person has to write a statement detailing they attended the meeting, spoke up, made a motion, or what? In a disciplinary case, the complainant must say what they did to reconcile with the person whose behavior hurt them? How does that work in a sexual misconduct case? It adds more verbage, is confusing, and is an unnecessary procedural hoop.
• Item 05-02, which is the second or third round on the question of whether a prosecuting committee should have the ability to appeal a “not guilty” decision. We recently said yes; this overture seeks to have us go back to no.
• Item 05-08 which refers to editorial clarifications of language about the administration of candidates for ordination.
• Item 05-13 which is Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) advice responding to a question about  the scope of the emergency power of an administrative commission during a natural disaster or pandemic. Is our process regarding an administrative commission really going to be at the top of the priority list in the midst of a natural disaster or pandemic?
• Item 05-25, recommendation#4, which would amend D-2.0203b by adding the words, “however an offense does not include the mere act of participating in deliberations and decisions ultimately made by a committee or commission of a governing body or of the governing body.”

It is stuff like this that has added and will continue to add pages to the Form of Government. Some are good ideas, some are bad ideas, but here’s my point: they show how we operate.  We continue to work out the details of our common life together via administrative changes to the Form of Government. Replacing the document with another will only complicate matters and require us to do more, not less, clarification. That’s not missional.

Church Polity for $300.

Answer: The Daily Double. Here’s the clue: What the meaning of “is” is.

Question: What are the proposed developments regarding G-13.0103r (authoritative interpretations)?

Items 05-11, 05-21, 05-24, and 05-28 all deal with the issue of Authoritative Interpretations. It is a reflection on the level of distrust and the level of the power struggle that there are competing proposals. Of this group, the agenda lists first 05-21 (the advice and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC)).

The ACC recommends and Authoritative Interpretation about the section defining the power to issue authoritative interpretations. (Is = is? Maybe yes, maybe no.) From the ACC’s recommended Authoritative Interpretation:

More subtle, however, is the question of whether the act of interpreting wording of the Constitution changes the meaning of the Constitution. In truth, any interpretation of a text shapes the meaning of that text by addressing its provisions to circumstances perhaps not anticipated when the text was created. It is for this reason that we regard the church’s Constitution as a living document, in that by the act of interpretation we mold the meaning of our Constitution to fit the ever-changing landscape of the church’s life and witness. This interpretive work is therefore essential to the vitality of the church, lest the Constitution become a lifeless conglomeration of words without reference to reality.

We regard the church’s Constitution as a living document? The act of interpretation molds the meaning of our Constitution to fit the ever-changing landscape of the church’s life and witness? This is how “shall” becomes “may.”

The Daily Double part of this? Because 05-21 will be the first considered (unless something changes that order), this is the framework the committee is likely to use to consider the rest of the overtures. Again — this is how process impacts substance.

That’s it for my summary of Church Polity. There are other topics, but none so immediately pressing as to prolong this post. For anyone not serving on this Assembly Committee, I think the rest will go by very quickly as part of the Consent Agenda.

I have created a one-page, two-sided Word document with the committees and descriptions of responsibilities.

Some of the big issues are getting their own committees.

Committee 4 — Middle Governing Body issues (the COGA Commission)

Committee 6 — ordination (G-6.0106 and G-6.0108).

Committee 7 — nFoG

Committee 12 – Marriage

Committee 14 — Report of the Middle East Special Committee; MRTI (Caterpillar divestment)

“Social Justice Issues” get two committees — Committee 8 and Committee 9.

So, what can we deduce from the way the committees have been proposed? Reading the committees is like a quarterback reading a defense before the receiver goes in motion — everything looks familiar, but there is something out there that gives a clue to what the defense is doing.

You say good-bye and I say hello.

For example, the proposed new Form of Government report (nFoG) an illustration of how the structure can impact a substantive outcome.

No.

When people in local congregations wonder how something happens at the GA level, this would be a good illustration. Begin with the notion that presbyteries on all sides of the theological divide are weighing in, asking the GA to not go forward with nFoG. Last night, Chicago Presbytery approved an overture

to receive the report and recommendations of the Form of Government (FOG) Task Force; dismiss the task force with thanks; post the draft of the task force–recommended substitutes for the present Form of Government on the PC(USA) website for informational purposes; and invite presbyteries to consider proposing specific amendments to the present Form of Government to improve and enhance missional governance in the PC (USA).

Mississippi Presbytery already overtured the Assembly to not approve the nFoG. There are variations on the theme — some seeking to amend the nFoG proposal (Ovt 29 (Western Reserve Presbytery); 31 (Huntingdon Presbytery); 87 (San Fernando Presbytery), 99 Presbyterio de San Juan)) and some seeking to receive the report and dismiss the committee with thanks (44 (Middle Tennessee Presbytery); 95 (Central Washington Presbytery); 98 (Mississippi)); but none are a ringing endorsement. [To digress for a moment, already having multiple overtures proposing amendments to the proposed nFoG language undercuts the notion that approving the nFoG will make us less legalistic, less focused on the Book of Order, and more missional...but maybe that's just me.]

Yes.

On the other hand, the momentum at any General Assembly is to get to “yes” on whatever has been previously approved for study and work. Committee 7 will apparently get 8 hours of teaching, training, and investment in the passage of the nFoG before the Assembly convenes. The nFoG will be its only piece of business, and no one wants to spend their first (and, in many cases, only) opportunity to serve as a commissioner saying “no.” Commissioners and advisory delegates are people who care about the church, want to see it succeed, want to make a positive contribution — it is tough to feel like you are making a positive contribution by saying “no.”

So, granting the nFoG proposal its own commissioners committee increases the likelihood that it will get a “yes” vote from the Assembly. How? Commissioners often think and act like this:

• Yes, I think our Book of Order is too complex and to legalistic (whether or not I spend any time working with it — that’s what I have heard);
• The nFoG task force worked really hard;
• They mean well;
• They seem nice and we should trust them;
• I haven’t read it all, but they seem to know what they are talking about;
• Thus, we should pass their work along to the larger church and see what happens.

Now, to be clear — my point is not to slam the Stated Clerk for giving the nFoG proposal its own committee. For the record: I think he is right. Here’s why: the 218th GA approved the task force coming back with a proposal.  The Stated Clerk is abiding by the relative importance affirmed by the 218th GA. I am not going to read into the committee structure to say that he is acting as an advocate on behalf of passage of the nFoG. (The proposal of a pre-Assembly convened committee meeting does lead to that inference, but that’s a horse of a different color.)

My point is that the structure has an impact on the substance. The structure of this General Assembly is geared towards saying “yes” to the things proposed; even when the testimony of the presbyteries is a clear “no.”

Part of the reason for the shift in my attention is the COGA Commission has the greater likelihood of being enacted. That’s not a political evaluation, it is simply a fact: the COGA Commission requires a simple majority of the GA; the nFoG requires a simple majority of the GA and a majority vote of the presbyteries. Ironically, if the 219th GA approves both, the COGA Commission would have the authority to change the number of presbyteries — adding or dissolving — to such an extent that the outcome of the presbytery voting on the nFoG could be altered.

That said, the nFoG is still coming to the 219th General Assembly (2010). I have not been a fan of the proposed nFoG. Prior to the 218th General Assembly (2008), I spent a lot of time studying and evaluating that version. I had my gripes about what was included — but that would be expected of anything I did not write myself. The larger objection was that the committee was tasked with an impossible assignment:

Change the Form of Government without changing anything, and make sure it will make us missional.

(That’s a paraphrase.)

Diligently attempting to do so, the committee produced a draft that garnered no great support among commissioners at the 218th General Assembly. The idea was appealing enough, however, to not go for my substitute motion to dismiss the committee with thanks. Instead, it was sent back for more study, more input from the larger church, and a re-write. So that’s what we have coming to the 219th General Assembly (2010).

It is early; but I have not heard or seen anyone excited about the possibility of approving and adopting the nFoG. Without doing any formal polling, my anecdotal experience of the response of others when asked about the nFoG has been more eye-rolling than enthusiasm. Most people do not have a comprehensive understanding of what is in the current Form of Government to know whether the nFoG is better, worse, or the same — and the notion of having to study and read both? Well, water-boarding sounds like more fun (hyperbole).

We do not pay attention to our current Form of Government. It is not realistic to expect that a new one (which we also will ignore) will make us any more missional. Regardless of what is in it, it can only create additional problems rather than solve them.

Beyond that, it seems like the COGA Commission is the Stated Clerk’s way of saying the nFoG is not sufficient for the problems at hand. The COGA Commission would not require presbytery approval before being implemented. The COGA Commission would have broad authority to effect change immediately versus an additional round of study (or not) and presbytery voting before the possibility of change. The nFoG would demand the creations of manuals at every level, the COGA Commission would have discretionary authority to impose change at every level.

Comparing the two is like the difference between a facelift and a quadruple coronary by-pass; both surgeries have the risk of fatality, but the perception of the underlying condition is very different.

Follow on RSS

]]> http://www.presbyblog.com/blog/index.php/2010/04/07/nfog-and-the-coga-commission/feed/ 0