biography

current

sermons

archives

home

 

 

 

January 13, 2010: The Big Picture of the proposed new Form of Government (nFoG)

Yesterday, I noted that the proposed new Form of Government is a complete overhaul of the denomination's "operating system," suggesting that adoption would not result in a smooth transition. Today, I want to continue looking at the big picture comparison between what is currently in place and what is being proposed.

Is the current Form of Government perfect? No. Is it cumbersome and difficult? Sometimes. Well, then, why not replace it? In theory, the attempt to streamline the way we do things and to simplify the Constitution makes sense. In reality, it would not simplify and would ultimately multiply the problems we have because 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.

Again, 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. Bill Chapman wrote a book years ago entitled, Blood on Every Page, about the formation and development of the Book of Order. Chapman's title is appropriate. When I taught a polity course a couple of years ago, I could tell the students a story or cite an example of an issue about each chapter of the Form of Government. Changes should be careful, intentional, and thoroughly discerned.

Let's start looking at the big picture.

The Task Force's report and recommendations to the 219th General Assembly (2010) present the best case scenario for adoption of the nFoG. That is important to know. It also is important to look at the other side of the coin, which is what would be the worst case scenario. When looking at Forms of Government, the interpretive standard is two-fold: "Does this say what we think it says" AND "what problems will be created if we make these changes?"

Before we look at the details inside the nFoG, it is important we take some time with assumptions the Task Force was required to make. If you remember from the report, there were five elements of the Task Force's charge. These were the marching orders from the 217th General Assembly (2006), revised and renewed by the 218th General Assembly (2008). In my previous note, I highlighted two; both of which I think are critical in understanding why the Task Force made some of its choices.  

2) The focus of the Form of Government shall be on providing leadership for local congregations as missional communities (italics added);

I am not sure the Form of Government will ever provide leadership for local congregations as missional communities. I just think this is a false presumption; that a Form of Government ever could provide leadership for missional communities. Unless your congregation is vastly different than mine (and any of the hundreds I have visited over the last fifteen years), the Form of Government does not enter the conversation of the mission and ministry of the church unless someone is looking to see if an idea is prohibited.

In healthy ministry, polity follows mission and ministry, not the other way around.

You cannot obligate people to love Jesus. You cannot obligate people to share their testimony. You cannot obligate people to reach out in compassion, to pursue justice, to proclaim the gospel. You will never grow missionally because members say, "Well, the Form of Government says, 'You have to.'"

Part of the frustration for many Presbyterians is that we have been operating as if our polity does provide "leadership." That's the error. That's why the fights have been so fierce; because the choices that are made are choices about real life and the decisions matter. But it also is why we have stopped looking at mission and ministry with an attitude of "how can we?" and instead have been too worried about "are we allowed to?"

Adopting new language will set us back into a pattern of fighting about what is allowed under the new rules. In a perfect world we would all agree. In our very real setting, we do not agree. Things that have been settled are again up for grabs (because precedent is tied to specific language). This would not be a short-term setback to get to a long-term improvement; it would mire us more deeply in the status quo. Instead of certainty and clarity, adoption of a whole new set of standards will set off a new round of uncertainty and dis-investment. Why bother investing time, energy, and effort in being connectional if the rules are simply going to change?

(To digress for a moment: be aware that there is no "escape" clause in the nFoG. At the time of reunion in 1983, G-8.0701 was included. It was an eight year period of time in which a congregation could evaluate and discern its continued participation in the newly reunited denomination. Here, a simple majority of commissioners to one General Assembly and a simple majority of presbyteries can re-constitute without the minority having any real option to not go along. )



3) The Form of Government shall provide sufficient authority and flexibility to allow the presbytery to assist congregations in addressing the changing cultural, economic, and societal challenges in our new millennial world. The FOG Task Force shall take notice of and address the institutional and structural impediments that currently cripple so very many of our presbyteries. (italics added)

What are the institutional and structural impediments that currently cripple so very many of our presbyteries? This is a straw man or a red herring or a distraction -- it just is not the case. The Form of Government is not what is stopping "so very many of our presbyteries." It just isn't.

What is stopping "so very many of our presbyteries" is -- wait for it -- ... us. Me and you. Right now, there are plenty of creative ways to function missionally to do the things we actually are willing to do. Citing the "oppressive Form of Government" is a convenient rationalization for why we are not doing those things. It is a poor excuse to say that we are not involved in "presenting the claims of Jesus Christ, leading persons to repentance, acceptance of him as Savior and Lord, and new life as his disciples" because the Form of Government does not let us. Please.

Does it slow things down at times? Absolutely. There is, built-in, a designed inefficiency that mirrors our theological convictions. We have checks and balances in order to provide accountability and community discernment. But "crippling"? Seriously, look at this in your own personal life:

Let's stop pretending that the Form of Government is some weight on our shoulders inhibiting us from engaging in the Great Ends of the Church.

Again, let me point out: my comments thus far have to do with the charge the Task Force was given; it is not a criticism of the work they did.

Again, the current Form of Government is not perfect. It probably is not perfectly suited to ministry in the 21st Century. That said, re-constituting based on inaccurate assumptions and without a compelling vision of where we are going already in progress is not necessarily a better alternative.

 

 

  Follow on RSS RSS  

Back to 219th General Assembly Prep Index

Posts older than June 20, 2008: Archives