January 21, 2010: Quick Answers In nFoG

My friend, Bob Kopp, sent me a series of questions yesterday regarding the proposed new Form of Government (nFoG). He is posting up a summary of the responses he receives on the Kopp Disclosure. He posed some good questions. I shot from the hip and gave my responses; I am curious as to whether others will think I got it right.

Here are the questions:

1. Does this mean each judicatory (presbyteries/sessions with synods being increasingly irrelevant) will set its own ordination standards for deacons, elders, and clergy?

Pretty much, yes. G-2.0105 Freedom of Conscience is the nFoG version of G-6.0108. It eliminates the footnote to G-6.0108b,

1Very early in the history of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, even before the
General Assembly was established, the plan of reunion of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia
contained the following sentences: “That when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member
shall either actively concur with or passively submit to such determination; or if his conscience
permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably
withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided always that this
shall be understood to extend only to such determination as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine
or Presbyterian government.” (Hist. Dig. (P) p. 1310.) (Plan of Union of 1758, par. II.)

Thus, there will be litigation to determine the meaning of the line, "The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the council in which he or she is a member." (modified from "the governing body in which he or she serves.") Does this new language mean that the local council has absolute authority to decide conformity to the essentials of the Reformed faith?

Well, the rule is: if you can interpret something to achieve a result you do not like, it is the result you are most likely to get. Who is going to ante up the expense to litigate this as a case of first impression? Remember, no precedent exists because all prior cases would have been tied to citations and language that no longer exist.

So, even if it is not intended to work this way, every presbytery can ultimately decide that G-6.0106b (nFoG G-2.0104) "is not indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government" for itself.

2. Does this mean voluntary per capita apportionments will be mandatory taxation without any real representation?

Yes, in principle; but a little nuanced.

• Per capita is an optional category of taxation; thus, may or may not be how the higher councils choose to be funded. (nFoG, G-3.0106, "Each council 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 congregations within its bounds.)
  
  
• That said, the rest of the budget is an obligation for the presbytery to collect from the congregations to remit to the higher councils. (nFoG, G-3.0106 -- in fact, the next sentence, "Presbyteries are responsible for raising their own funds and FOR RAISING AND TIMELY TRANSMISSION OF FUNDS to their respective synods and the General Assembly.")
  
  
• Worse, apportionment of per capita need not be equal in a presbytery, it can be punitive or subjective. (G-3.0106 - "Presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments to sessions within their bounds.") Although I am certain it is not intended to be read this way, the natural inference to be drawn is that wealthier congregations may be directed to pay some or all of the per capita while other congregations may be excused entirely.

3. How will nFog enable/disable gay marriages in Presbyterian churches?

It certainly makes the disciplinary track much more difficult to navigate. It does not change the definition for marriage (found in the W- section of the Book of Order), nor does it change the G-6.0106b quote of the definition of marriage citing the W- section. That said, because the nFoG eliminates any previous Authoritative Interpretations tied to sections of the current Form of Government (AI's are always tied to the specific language of a specific section), it all has to be re-litigated.

Because it is unlikely to be re-litigated (who is going to pay for attorneys to argue at multiple levels, again?), it will be license for proponents of gay marriage to do what they would like.

4. Does it encourage our historical/traditional commitment to connectionalism or replace it with a congregationalism akin to the UCC?

The latter.

Please comment on any of those questions and tell us about your concerns/alerts for folks in the trenches.

The concern is that commissioners and advisory delegates will not take the time to think through what it is they are being asked to approve. My impression is that most Assemblies want to do something positive, so they want to believe the most positive about how we will act as a community. They do not want to hear about negative consequences, they only want to know positive possibilities.

If passed by this General Assembly, the simple message to the presbyteries is "vote no." Presbyteries do not get to change, amend, wordsmith, or in any way say, "yes, if..." It's an up or down vote. If there is anything (too liberal, too conservative, too ambiguous, too restrictive), the whole thing needs to be "no."

Those were my comments.

What do you think? Did I get it right or miss the boat?

Acronym of the Day: ACREC

The General Assembly is filled with acronyms. There is a page dedicated to all the different shorthand references on the denomination's site. I am going to (try to) go the acronyms most often heard/used at General Assembly in alphabetical order.

Today's acronym of the day: ACREC = Advocacy Committee on Racial Ethnic Concerns.

The official description of ACREC is that it "advises the General Assembly on all matters related to the church's ministry with racial ethnic persons and groups and on the church's witness to the world regarding racial ethnic issues."

Most recently ACREC has been in the news for the evaluation of how it relates and functions within the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC -- we will cover this acronym down the line). ACREC is one of several "advocacy" groups within the GAMC structure.

ACREC has two primary responsibilities: advocacy and monitoring. It is like an "internal affairs" agency to make sure that the denomination complies with what it says it should do with regard to programs and policies on racial justice and racial ethnic issues. Further, it draws issues to the attention of the GAMC where it discerns racial ethnic issues outside of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) need to be addressed. It reports directly to the GAMC and the General Assembly with voice, not vote, rights. 

The reason ACREC's roles and responsibilities has come into the news is because of the tension between funding and accountability. ACREC's charge is fairly wide ranging, affording it the opportunity to undertake tasks and stake out positions that are not necessarily consistent with the direction of the General Assembly and GAMC. On September 23, 2009, Leslie Scanlon of the Presbyterian Outlook (for my money the best news reporter working the PC(USA) beat) detailed the substance of the evaluation. Key paragraphs:

What sometimes happens, said Michaeld Kruse of Kansas City, the council's vice-chair, is that when an issue becomes controversial, "nobody is appreoached here and suddenly a public declaration takes place and an e-mail gets circulated widely," when the difficulties might have been cleared up if there had been more consultation at the beginning.

The council members also objected to what they see as an unfair assumption at times that -- when there are differences of views -- council members aren't concerned about issues of justice and diversity. Some council members are frustrated and "can't understand the level of what feels like antagonism" coming from the committees.

That relationship will be the issue coming for discussion, debate, and action at the 219th General Assembly (2010).

 

  Follow on RSS  

Back to 219th General Assembly Prep Index

Posts older than June 20, 2008: Archives