219^th General Assembly
2010

Committee 7: Form of Government Revision

An introductory look at some issues coming to this committee

[6-10-10]

Click on any Item number to jump to the full text on the PC-BIZ website.

Items 07-01 and 07-02 present the recommendations of the Form of Government Task Force. Gene TeSelle, the former Issues Analyst of the Witherspoon Society, provides an analysis of this important matter in a separate article, below.

The other items coming before Committee 07 suggest amendments of various sections of the recommended new Form of Government, except for items 04, 07, and 08, which in one way or another would dismiss or delay implementation of the recommendations.

by Gene TeSelle, former Issues Analyst of the Witherspoon Society
[published in Network News, pp. 29-30, and posted here on 6-4-10]

This task force, created by the 2006 General Assembly, is bringing a report which (1) rewrites the first four chapters of the Form of Government (the “foundations” of Presbyterian polity), (2) replaces chapters 5-18 with shorter and simpler language, and (3) offers an Advisory Handbook for governing bodies, outlining important concerns and asking how they will be dealt with. The 2008 General Assembly reviewed the report and sent it back to the task force for reworking, and the “final draft” is coming to the 2010 Assembly with a unanimous vote by the task force.

The complete report is available online at www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/

The Task Force was trying to be as permission-giving as possible; therefore it avoided as many regulations as it could. At first glance this has great appeal, since we want freedom for ourselves and trust our allies. But then we wonder what other camps might do and begin to formulate regulations to prevent “irresponsible” behavior on their part.

Suspicions have been raised across the theological spectrum. Probably it is the result of the attempt to “simplify,” which means that one or another treasured feature of the FOG is left out or blunted.

People who have experienced conflicts begin imagining “loopholes” that would let bad behavior slip through without corrective procedures.

The new draft consciously avoids certain issues. The task force was instructed to make no changes in the provisions concerning GLBT ordination (G-6.0106 is carried over as F-2.0104), freedom of conscience (G-6.0108 becomes F-2.0105), the authority of “confessional standards” (G-2.0200 becomes F-2.02), or the “trust clause” (G-8.0200 becomes F-4.0203).

If the General Assembly were to adopt the draft FOG, including these provisions, it would be wise for it also to reaffirm the various rulings of the Permanent Judicial Commission and the Authoritative Interpretations of the General Assembly regarding them, so that we do not start a new round of controversies.

The draft makes some important efforts at ecumenicity. It mentions the four traditional “marks” of the church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) and the three “notes” of the Reformed tradition (Word, sacraments, discipline) [F-1.0303], and it affirms that the confessions of the church are based in affirmations by the “Church Catholic,” the Protestant Reformation, and the Reformed tradition (F-2.03 to F-2.05).

And yet at the same time it takes some steps backward.

It reverts to the old language of “teaching” and “ruling” elders, abandoning the ecumenical language of “ministers of Word and Sacrament” (agreed to in the “Lima document” on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry).

And just when we had learned to speak of “governing bodies” rather than “courts,” it now decides to call them “councils.” In the history of the church, councils were temporary gatherings with a specific purpose (the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 21 ecumenical councils in 2000 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church, only 7). The English language has led to confusion, since we use “council” both for this kind of gathering and for a group whose function is “counsel.” There is a difference between concilium and consilium, concile and conseil, which the Anglo-Saxons did not quite pick up from their Norman rulers. The Catholic Church calls its continuing administrative organizations “conferences.” Scholars dealing with the growth of representative government in the German churches (with special credit going to Schleiermacher, the 1848 revolutions, Bismarck, and the Weimar Republic) use the term “synodal.” Why don’t we just continue our more descriptive language of “governing bodies”?

Finally, let me highlight two specific reasons for concern.

First, while the draft affirms “unity in diversity” and says that there is no place for discrimination (F-1.0403), and invites participation and representation by all (F-3.0103), it leaves out the formation of Committees on Representation (G-9.0105), and only says that governing bodies (excuse me, councils) are to establish committees “by their own rule.” The Articles of Agreement that effected reunion in 1983 also provided for Advocacy Committees on Women’s Concerns and Racial Ethnic Concerns. These, too, should be referenced in the Form of Government, since questions have been raised about their permanent status.

Second, some of the language, and the “deregulation” mood in general, is reminiscent of the slogan that “the church is mission” — a slogan that first gained currency during the Sixties but is currently being exploited by the conservative New Wineskins movement, which speaks about the need for flexibility but regards this as quite compatible with insistence upon very specific tests of orthodoxy.

Several years ago the Presbytery of San Diego declared itself to be no longer primarily a “governing body” but a “relational community” that is “becoming a mission agency.” And proposals have been made to the 2010 General Assembly that non-geographical presbyteries be permitted.

Let’s consider the consequences carefully. Presbyteries would become much more homogeneous; votes would be swayed by factional rhetoric, without any need to find broad grounds for agreement; and the rights of minorities would be seriously compromised.

There is nothing wrong with flexibility and noble purposes. But when controversy arises and we face clever lawyers on all sides of an issue, we still need procedural guidelines and criteria for decision-making. Many of the details in the existing Form of Government were added through the years, usually judiciously, as a result of procedural confusions that inevitably arise and need clarification. The new mood that “the church is mission” and “form follows function” might encourage impatience about due process and minority rights in order to “just get the job done.” If that were to happen, there would be a new round of amendments to fill gaps that did not need to be created in the first place.

Two Witherspoon/Voices board members offer comments

Presbyterian News Service reports – using a story written by Leslie Scanlon of The Presbyterian Outlook – that the new Form of Government Task Force of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has The Form of Government Task Force has submitted the final draft of its report to the 219th General Assembly (2010).

The task force voted unanimously at its meeting in Louisville last month to approve the report.

The new proposal makes some changes from the recommendations regarding the Form of Government (FOG) that the General Assembly considered in 2008, but it keeps intact some key recommendations from that first plan, including some considered controversial.

For the full story, please click here. And the complete report of the new Form of Government Task Force is also available online.

Gene TeSelle offers these thoughts:

First, we should note that no changes were to be made either in G-6.0106b or in the “trust clause.” Re-drafting was not to be a smoke screen for making basic policy changes.

But of course there will always be questions about changes in emphasis that could have major consequences. A careful comparison might be made between the summary of the Reformed tradition and the one we already have in chapter 3 of the Form of Government.

I notice that there is a reversion to the old language of “teaching” and “ruling” elders, abandoning the ecumenical language of “ministers of Word and Sacrament.” At first glance it seems to be an abandonment of ecumenicity – and perhaps a new assertiveness on the part of elders. Governing bodies are called “councils.” In the history of the church, councils were always temporary gatherings for a specific purpose. The English language has led to some confusion, since we use “council” for a group whose function is “counsel.” But there’s a difference between concilium and consilium, concile and conseil, that should not be lost. The Catholic Church calls the ongoing organizations “conferences.” But why don’t we just continue our language of “governing bodies”? If we want something really classy, we could follow the Dutch and call a presbytery a classis.

Finally, a basic caution. The call for a new Form of Government seems to be motivated by impatience with the detail of the existing one. But those details have been added through the years, usually judiciously, as a result of procedural confusions that inevitably arise and need clarification. The new mood is that “the church is mission,” that “form follows function.” The danger is that it might encourage an impatience about procedures and minority rights in order to “just get the job done.” If that happens, then there will be a new round of amendments to fill gaps that did not need to be created in the first place.

Mitch Trigger adds these comments:

I have looked forward to the culmination of the work of the Form of Government Task Force as they have shown some interesting developments along the path of its development. It seems to show the flexibility and singleness of direction that it was asked to develop.

That’s why I was disturbed, though, by its use of the word “standards” in regard to the confessions of the church. As a minister of Word and Sacrament, I take seriously my vow to be “instructed and led by the confessions.” The FOG draft, however, has added something I can’t agree with. “While confessional standards are subordinate to the Scriptures, they are, nonetheless, standards. They are not lightly drawn up or subscribed to, nor may they be ignored or dismissed. The church is prepared to instruct, counsel with, or even to discipline one ordained who seriously rejects the faith expressed in the confessions.” (FOG draft, F-2.02)

This use of the word “standard” raises more problems than this section would have otherwise engendered. Does this mean I must ascribe to the concept of original sin as it is found in the confessions? Must I now advocate substitutionary atonement? And do we have to delve into predestination again? By using the word “standards,” and the sentence where the church is “prepared to instruct, counsel with, or even to discipline one ordained,” the Task Force has created a very different meaning than the vows I took in my ordination.

There are many other areas where the work of the Task Force was clear and concise, areas where they did an exemplary job of illustrating our shared faith. I hope this can also be made to be one of those areas, but not as it currently stands.

Those are a few brief thoughts from two of our Board members. And now we’re interested in finding out about your questions and concerns – and your favorable comments – about the draft Form of Government.

The Presbyterian Coalition has issued a statement criticizing the proposed new Form of Government for, among other things:

•           “demoting” the authority of Scripture

•           imposing “Radical Inclusiveness Without Boundaries”

•           giving excessive power to presbyteries in matters such as dissolving pastoral relationships, appointing commissions to deal with problems in pastoral relationships, etc.

•           allowing presbyteries and GA to require payment of per capita assessments by congregations

•           removing many provisions now in the Constitution, reducing their weight to mere statements in manuals of the various bodies, thereby reducing their authority and creating a “denial of minority rights.”

These, they say, are “reasons to vote No on nFOG”

Their full statement >>

A Witherspoon note:
We have reported concerns of our own about the FOG report. As you might suspect, they differ a bit from those put forth by the Coalition.

'We commend this work to the church'
[8-19-09]

Sharon Youngs, communications coordinator of the Office of the General Assembly, has issued this news release on August 19, 2009:

DALLAS - The Form of Government Task Force has unanimously approved and submitted to the stated clerk of the General Assembly the final version of its work to revise the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The 11 members of the task force spent a major portion of their August 12-14 meeting here reviewing and refining their work before taking a final vote on Thursday (Aug. 13).

The task force released the initial draft of its work last fall. It invited feedback from across the church, which was taken into consideration as the group made final revisions to this portion of the PC(USA)'s Constitution. ...

Among the key items the task force members discussed last week prior to their vote was whether an interim pastor of a congregation could become that congregation's installed pastor. The task force voted to include that provision in its work. ...

The task force plans to post its final draft online by Sept. 1, which will be nearly six weeks ahead of the Oct. 15 deadline to submit its work to the stated clerk of the General Assembly for consideration by the 219th General Assembly (2010).

Between now and next summer's assembly, members of the task force will be making themselves available to interpret their work to governing bodies and other groups. Requests for visits can be made by calling (888) 728-7228, ext. 5808, or by sending an email to Joanne Green in the Department of Constitutional Services..

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep Voices for Justice going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Presbyterian Voices for Justice" and marked "web site," to our PVJ Treasurer:

PVJ's Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, PVJ's Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?