The bulk of the material and changes in the Form of Government Task Force report are to chapters 5-18 of the current Form of Government.  While the changes to the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity were mostly reorganization with some modification, this part is probably better described as modifications with some reorganization.  As I mentioned in the previous post, sort of the part 1 of this series, the objective of the task force was to create a new Government part that preserved the essentials of the PC(USA) polity, while making it more flexible, streamlined, and missional.

I can understand
and applaud the desire to make the polity more flexible.  After serving on the
Committee on Ministry in a presbytery with several congregations that
worshiped in languages other than English, Spanish, or Korean the
flexibility is appreciated.  For example, what does it mean to conduct
a proper pastoral search for a pastor for a language group for which
there are less churches in the PC(USA) than you can count on one hand
and you have to be blessed to be searching at a time when even one candidate who
speaks that language is qualified ready.  Or working with a church who
needs a pastor who speaks a particular language but a theological outlook
that is not typical for that culture.  Or there are language groups who have so
few minister candidates in any Presbyterian branch in North America
that they regularly include pastors in their country of origin in their
searches.  These are examples of times when our COM had to be
“creative” with the existing PC(USA) polity to accommodate the
realities of our presbytery.  By the same token, geographically large
rural presbyteries are coming up against situations where the polity
can make things difficult when churches are small, interested pastors are few, and compensation is at minimums or the position is part-time.  There are times when the flexibility is desirable if not required.

Does the proposed Form of Government do that?

As I mentioned before, fourteen chapters have been consolidated to six:  1 – Congregations and their Membership, 2 – Ordained Ministry, Commissioning, and Certification, 3 – Councils of the Church, 4 – The Church and Civil Authority, 5 – Ecumenicity and Union, 6 – Interpreting and Amending the Constitution.

Now, there is no way that I can touch on all the changes the proposed revision has.  (If you are really interested, you can read the report and side-by-side comparisons yourself.  If you see something that I missed or I did not think was significant enough to include feel free to leave a comment.)  Most of the changes fall into the category of “procedure” so if you are thinking of something in the Book of Order and it seems like a procedure rather than a principle it is probably not in the new Form of Government (Government).  This includes a lot of the details.  For example, quorums and meeting notification times for any meetings, congregational, session, presbytery, etc., are no longer in the text.  Just that “adequate public notice” be given, and for congregational meetings it must be at a worship service (G-1.0501).

Likewise, the proposed revision tells governing bodies what must be done, but now how to do it.  This means that committees, like the Committee on Ministry, the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, and even the Nominating Committee and the Committee on Representation are not specified and not required of governing bodies.  For example, a governing body shall “…have a process for nominating persons to serve in positions requiring election…” (G-3.0112).  They can use a Nominating Committee, but can also have a different mechanism.  An extension of this is that presbyteries must simply examine ministers for membership in the presbytery, it does not say how so there is no longer a requirement to examine before the whole presbytery (G-3.0307).  A third example is the session representation to presbytery (G-3.0301).  It says that each session gets at least one commissioner and that the numbers of teaching elders and ruling elders should be as equal as possible.  Beyond that a presbytery may decide how additional ruling elders are apportioned to churches, but it does say that the membership of the church should be taken into account.  Other cases like this are found throughout the revised Government.

One exception to the lack of procedures is that the procedure for
amending the Book of Order is still present complete with the
specifications for the Assembly Committee on the Constitution and the
120 day submittal deadline before an Assembly. (Chapter 6)  Another
exception which could be viewed as procedural is that the six-year
limit of consecutive service of ruling elders and deacons on session
and the board of deacons respectively is still included (G-2.0206).

The use of new language in the document has attracted some attention.  Governing bodies are now referred to as “councils,” a great word from church history but it will be confusing at first because the current councils of our governing bodies are usually executive boards.  While the terms “minister” and “Minister of Word and Sacrament” are still found in the proposed revision, the use of “teaching elder,” to coordinate with to the term “ruling elder,” is now favored.  Another one, which will take me some getting used to, is the use of the term “ordered ministry” instead of “office” or “ordained office.”  Finally, “congregation” is used in place of “particular church” at times, a swap I am not as favorable to of since I know of several churches that have multiple congregations that worship in different languages but join together on one session.

There are at least two sets of terms which have been removed from the proposed Government.  The first is “inactive” when referring to a member of a church or a minister member of presbytery.  To the task force considering missional polity the term “inactive member” was an oxymoron.  Another set of terms that you will not find are those wonderful descriptors of “temporary pastoral relationships.”  The new Government says that there are temporary pastoral relationships (G-2.0303b) but that “Titles and terms of service for temporary relationships shall be determined by the presbytery.”  While “pastor,” “co-pastor,” and “associate pastor” remain, gone are specifications of “interim,” “designated,” “temporary supply,” and “stated supply” pastor.  From my experience working with churches and our stated clerk to match the right designation to the needs of the congregation and the requirements of our polity, I personally won’t miss this matrix.  This is one point where the flexibility is welcome. 

That brings us to an important point about the proposed Form of Government.  There are points where the task force did propose significant changes to the polity and in a nice gesture of full-disclosure and integrity they have included these as separate recommendations in the report.  After the full text of the Government part there are four more recommendations that would change significant items in the Form of Government should it be approved.  This will allow the GA and presbyteries to vote specifically on these polity changes.

The first possible adjustment deals with associate pastors and their ability to become the pastor of that church.  In the proposed Government the task force included the clause that the associate could become the installed pastor if the presbytery concurred by a 3/4 vote.  This proposed change would strike that clause returning the polity to our current status that an associate shall not become the next senior pastor in the congregation they serve.

The second is the similar change for temporary pastoral relationships.   As currently written any temporary pastor could be declared eligible to become the installed pastor by a 3/4 vote of presbytery.  The possible new language would make it so that any temporary pastor but an interim pastor could become eligible to be the next installed pastor by the 3/4 vote of presbytery.  But this sets up a very interesting situation in the proposed polity.  As I already mentioned, no temporary pastoral relationships are defined or even listed in the new Government.  In fact, doing a search of the Task Force report for “interim” this is the only use I find in the whole report!  If adopted, it would set up polity for a position we know by tradition, and probably by external definition, but would use a term that would be an orphan in the text without any internal context.

The third Additional Recommendation would remove an addition the task force made to make the polity more missional.  In the new G-2.0302a, the section on validated ministry, the sixth item in the list of what a validated ministry shall include is “include proclamation of the Word and administration of the Sacraments.”  This is not something associated with all validated ministries but the reasoning goes that if you are a Minister of Word and Sacrament shouldn’t you be living into that title by doing those things.  This third adjustment would eliminate that requirement.

Finally, the fourth adjustment is language that, while not mandating the Committee on Representation, would at least make reference to something like it in G-3.0104 by adding “Councils above the session may establish committees to advocate for diversity in leadership.”

I would also note that the proposed Chapter 6 on amending includes a section (G-6.0501) that prohibits the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity from being amended for six years following their adoption.

For me, one of the “sleepers” of this report is the change in language from “per-capita” to “raising funds.”  This is not just a semantic change but the last paragraph of proposed section about administration, G-3.0107, (a long section with minimal citation) reads:

The funding of mission similarly demonstrates the unity and interdependence of the church. The failure of any part of the church to participate in the stewardship of the mission of the whole church diminishes that unity and interdependence. All mission funding should enable the church to give effective witness in the world to the new reality of God in Jesus Christ. Each council shall prepare an annual budget. Councils higher than the session may request funds for their mission and for support of the meetings and ongoing functions through which the interdependence of the church is lived out. Presbyteries are responsible for raising their own funds and for raising and timely transmission of requested funds to their respective synods and the General Assembly. Presbyteries may apportion requested funds to sessions within their bounds.

While I will grant you that this section is theologically based and it clearly eliminates the procedures of splitting mission and per-capita funding and then soliciting the first and collecting and arm-twisting the second, the open-ended nature of this section seems to invite creative accounting and blurred lines between ecclesiastical and mission budgets.  But I know, the new polity is all about mission; everything we do is now supposed to be mission.  However, the current Book of Order is like it is because we have a fallen nature and we use the rules not as a legalistic tool, but a device to guide and focus us in our ministry.  There is a place for hard and fast rules and without those to guide our finances I see this as one of the points for possible abuse.  OK, soap box mode off.

At this point I am down to my “laundry list” of numerous changes trying to decide what else to include in this post.  One of interest is that the section on “Preparation for Ministry” does make mention of the written Ordination Exams, but no longer specifies the topics (G-2.0407d).  The number of members of a commission and the fact that you can not have elders from the same church are details that are no longer specified (G-3.0110).  I would also note here that like the Foundations part, the proposed Government part is also minimalist with citations and that section 3.0110 is quite long with very little numbering to assist citation.  Another interesting change is that the responsibility of the session to instruct and examine those who join the church by reaffirmation of faith has been dropped, but it is still there for those who join by profession of faith (G-1.0304).  Finally, the proposed polity lets presbyteries decide if synods should have “reduced functions.”  Section 3.0404 says “When a two-thirds majority of its constituent presbyteries so decide, the function of a synod may be reduced but shall in no case be less than the prov
ision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries.”

There are a whole bunch more of this type of changes, but I think you should have the idea by now.  The report concludes with an Advisory Handbook for Councils for the Development of Policies and Procedures and the recommendation to GA that it be commended to the governing bodies-turned-councils.

Talking to several other “polity wonks” we all agree that if this revision to the Form of Government is approved by the GA and adopted by a majority of the presbyteries in anything like the form in the report there are likely to be two important consequences.  The first is that presbyteries will begin, and could be preoccupied with, a writing process to create the procedure and policy pieces that will have been removed from the Book of Order.  The second consequence will be an increase in the number of Permanent Judicial Commission cases as sessions and presbyteries deal with, and are challenged on, the new flexibility, including the freedom to set quorums and notification times for meetings.  The present Book of Order has the detail and procedures that it does because of cases like these in the past and the perceived need to codify certain items.  The governing bodies can delay, or cover themselves during, the writing of policies and procedures documents by adopting the procedures of the old Form of Government the way several (many?) presbyteries did this past year following the approval of the new chapter 14 which similarly makes use of Advisory Handbooks which were still in preparation.

The flip side of this is that there is great uncertainty about the applicability of current authoritative interpretations and PJC decisions that help us interpret the current Book of Order.  In fact, in my reading the new Government appears to be silent on these and the affect of existing or new guidance on the new Form of Government.  Do these remain in effect, but we have to figure out how they apply to new citations and new wording?  Do they get thrown out and we start over building a new framework?  Or something in between?

I have expected a bit more reaction to this report than I have found so far.  On his blog Pastor Bob has made some comments both positive and negative about the Foundations and the Government part and has some good points beyond what I had thought about.  I have found on the web a letter from the Session of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church which expresses the opinion that the revision is not an improvement on the current and offers suggestions for improvement and clarification.  There is also a movement to have the church look it over for the two years between the 218th and 219th General Assembly.  According to a commentary by Jim Berkley on the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) web site there were several members of the General Assembly Council who advocated for this at their September meeting where they got an advanced look at the task force recommendation.  In this article Mr. Berkley seems to advocate this as well and the Presbytery of Mississippi has sent an overture (16) to GA requesting this.  Jim Berkley also has an earlier article on the IRD web site addressing the obvious confusion that could result from overtures to amend Book of Order text that may not exist if the FOG report is adopted.  Finally, Jim has on his own blog, The Berkley Blog, a commentary titled “ Ready for a Book of Order Downgrade?“

As for myself, I am withholding judgment on this part until GA gets done working it over.  If I had to vote today on how it currently reads I would probably vote no.  I appreciate the increased flexibility and would like to see a Form of Government that can adapt to a variety of unique situations.  However, I have also seen my own congregation go to the Committee on Ministry and say “we like our interim, can we keep him?”  Fortunately the COM turned them down and it was a good thing too.  Besides the fact that it was it against the rules, the pastor we did call was truly God’s gift to our congregation and shows what can happen when you do a search right.  As a former moderator of COM, I am trying to figure out how I would write it to provide flexibility without undue temptation.  And I will acknowledge that the current Book of Order has become a patchwork with amendments to answer particular issues but not necessarily added in a big-picture way.  I do not want to argue against a rewrite, just something that is in the middle ground between the current and the proposed.

But, this report has a long way to go in the next six months.  It will be poked and prodded in GA committee and on the plenary floor.  It can be amended, modified, rewritten, or abandoned at both stages.  Throw into the mix the numerous overtures for Book of Order changes and how they may, or may not, apply to the rewrite.  And then the final product will be ready to go back out to the presbyteries for approval (but not modification).  We will see what the process brings.

A few weeks ago the Form of Government task force (FOG) completed its work and released their final report for the consideration of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in June.  This is not light reading and it took some time to digest the report and the accompanying documents.  While all the documents listed on the FOG web site are useful, I found that I relied on the “ Side-by-side comparison of the current to proposed form of government” the most since it best shows what has been removed in addition to the changes in wording.

It is important to keep in mind the charge to the task force from the 217th GA:  The Task Force was to rewrite the Form of Government section of the Book of Order to provide more leadership to congregations as “missional communities” and allow for flexibility for governing bodies to best work with congregations in our modern world.  However, the basic fundamental polity was not to be changed, the presbytery was to remain as the central governmental unit, and controversial sections G-6.0106b and G-8.0201 were not to be touched in wording but could be renumbered.

The changes to the Form of Government that are proposed are of two types:  There are organizational changes that move sections around, consolidate chapters, and even create a new part to the Book of Order.  Then there is editing to make the Book of Order a “Constitutional document, not a manual of operations.”  To achieve this aim all procedural sections are edited out.

The organizational change that has gotten the most coverage has been the division of the current Form of Government into two sections.  The first four chapters with the foundational polity has been put into a new section now called “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” (Foundations) and the remaining material kept in a smaller “Form of Government” (Government).  In addition, the Form of Government has been shortened further by moving some supporting material out of the constitution and into handbooks for the Committee on Ministry and the Committee on Preparation for Ministry.  In the reorganization of chapters the first four chapters of the current Form of Government are now three chapters in the Foundations section while the remaining fourteen chapters of Government have been reorganized down to six.

With the removal of the procedural sections how much has the Form of Government been shortened?  While page sizes and formatting make it challenging to get exact counts, the current Form of Government chapters 5 to 18 covers 112 pages in the published Book of Order and roughly 75 pages in the side-by-side comparison.  The new Form of Government is 64 pages as formatted in the report and roughly 43 pages in the side-by-side comparison.  These two measures are pretty consistent so without doing a word count the general appearance is that the reduction in size is by almost one half.

For comparison, the comparable document for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, The Code, is divided into two parts with Part I having about 40 pages of structure and Part II containing almost 100 pages of “Rules.”  In the Presbyterian Church in America, the Book of Church Order is 346 pages long with 84 pages in their Form of Government section and something like the PC(USA) chapter 1 in a Preface.  The PCA BCO is sized and typeset very much like the PC(USA) Book of Order so this is a close comparison.  Finally, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church Book of Order has a Book of Government section of about 76 pages.

In reviewing all of the material from the Form of Government Task Force (FOG) the rational for the structural reorganization makes sense to me.  One of the reasons for splitting out the Foundations part on its own is to make it clear that those principles apply to Directory for Worship and the Rules of Discipline parts in addition to the Form of Government.  This is something that I have always accepted implicitly so I don’t have a problem making it explicit.  Likewise, I am not opposed to the consolidation of chapters in the Government sections.  Anyone who has flipped between current chapters 6 and 14 trying to figure out some point of pastoral search or ordination, or who has searched chapters 9, 10 and 11 trying to locate a specific section on governing bodies, can probably appreciate this reorganization.

However, in reviewing the details of the editing there are proposed changes which open up questions and concerns for me.

For purposes of length and readability I have decided to split this blog post and so will discuss the proposed new part, the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity in this post and in my next one will pick up with the revised Form of Government part.  So…

Looking first at the Foundations part, the FOG claims:

The new Foundations preserves the vast majority of the text of the current first four chapters. There are sixty-seven paragraphs in the current G-1.0000 through G-4.0000. Of those sixty-seven paragraphs, sixty-three of them have been brought over into The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity. In thirty-five of the preserved paragraphs, the new text presents verbatim the contents of the current text. Twenty-eight of the paragraphs preserved have undergone some revision or modification, such as the combination of several smaller paragraphs into one larger one or the revision of content.

The Task Force, and its members individually, make a big deal about the continuity between the current and proposed versions.  But some of the changes, while subtle are not insignificant.  The red flag here should be the 28 paragraphs that have been “preserved” but modified.  These include subtle changes, like old G-1.0100a that refers to “Almighty God” but is replaced in new F-1.0201 with just “God.”  Or in the next paragraph where “his Kingdom” is replaced with “God’s new reality.”  I am in favor of using gender-neutral language where possible, but this change shifts the theological meaning.

There are points where the editing does improve the text in my opinion.  One example is the Great Ends of the Church where the current G-1.0200 lists them in a narrative paragraph but the new F-1.0304 splits them out as a bulleted list.  Likewise, the current G-3.0200 is supposed to be about “The Church as the Body of Christ” but the section starts with the church being the “provisional demonstration of what God intends for all humanity” and the “Body of Christ” language is down in G-3.0200c.  In the proposed F-1.0301 that Body of Christ section is moved to the top and the Provisional Demonstration immediately follows.  Personally I like that better.

It is interesting to note what has been deleted from Foundations.  In particular, I would point to the current G-2.0500b which was not carried over to Foundations.  This section begins “Thus, the creeds and confessions of the church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people.”  I’m not sure why this was eliminated since I think it helps us as Reformed Christians to recognize and understand that many of our confessional documents were written to address theological issues at a
particular point in history.

I have two other stylistic comments about the new Foundations:

First, there are a lot less numbered sections.  While most of the words are still there the citation system no longer gets you some of the detailed sections as it used to.  For example, in the current G-2.0500 Faith of the Reformed Tradition there are six paragraphs, each numbered down to trailing letters and numbers (such as G-2.0500a.(1), a citation length that a GA Junkie would love).  In the proposed revision the only citation, covering the same six paragraphs is F-2.05.

Second, I don’t like the opening.  Now here I may be getting picky but sometimes the first line of a book sets the tone for the whole thing.  Here are the choices to open the Book of Order:

For me, the current opening section is favored.  The main reason I favor it is that it contains many recognizable references to scripture, including the very first phrase which is taken from the Great Commission in Matt. 28, which if we are truly interested in missional polity would not be a bad thing to start with.  Yes I know that the proposed actually mentions mission as the second word, but somehow the identification with specific scripture passages really strengthens the current opening.  As a second reason, and this may be tied to the first, I am just struck by the more forceful and poetic nature of the current version.  Now this is subjective and your opinion may be different, but that is how it affects me.

If I had to vote at this point on the Foundations part I would probably vote no, but only weakly.  As a consensus document I could live with it.  None of our documents are perfect and while I do have objections I consider them minor in the grand scheme of things.  In any of our polity documents there are places I would love to make changes.  And there are places that I consider the new document an improvement.

Having gotten through the changes to the Form of Government as a whole, and the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity part I will finish up the new Government section and some concluding comments that I will post separately tomorrow.  Have fun and stay tuned.