I am sure that most of the G.A. Junkies in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) know that the Form of Government Task Force will be bringing their revisions to the New Form of Government  to the 219th General Assembly next July.  Having now had time to study the revisions I wanted to share my thoughts and observations.

It is important to keep in mind the goal and history of the revision of the Form of Government section of the Book of Order.  The goal is to make the Book of Order, or at least the Form of Government, a constitutional document that sets forth the basic principles but is not loaded up with the detailed procedures that the church is to follow.  In addition, it is to be a “missional” document reflecting the concept that the church exists for mission — to go out into the world and make disciples.

The first recent major revision to the Book of Order came from the 217th General Assembly when that Assembly sent a revised version of Chapter 14 to the presbyteries, and the presbyteries concurred.  (An interesting discussion at this time would be whether the presbyteries still think the new Chapter 14 is a good thing and how that will influence the outcome of the present decision.) What we have today in that chapter is the stylistic goal for the whole Form of Government section.  At the 218th General Assembly the Form of Government Task Force brought a complete revision to the rest of the FOG but the Assembly committee and the full Assembly decided it was “not ready for prime time.”  The tenure of the task force was extended, three Assembly commissioners were added to the task force, and given the opportunity one member of the task force opted out of the “extended mission.”  Just over a month ago the task force released their New Revised Form of Government for the review, consideration, and discernment of the church.  This revision is to reflect the vast amount of input the task force received both at the 218th Assembly as well as through the presbyteries and directly.

If you wish to follow my discussion closely, or you want to have a detailed comparison yourself, there are several documents that you might want to consult.  The first, of course, is the current 2009-2011 Book of Order.  From the 218th GA (2008) there is the Report of the Task Force as well as a great side-by-side comparison of the revision to the Form of Government section at that time.  From the extended mission we have Report of the Task Force with the full text, as well as the Foundations and Government sections separately.  As tempting as it is to refer to the first revision as the “revised version” and the new one as the “new revised version,” for my discussion here and in following posts I will refer to them as “nFOG 2008” and “nFOG 2010.”  (The dates are for the year of the GA that considers them, not the year of release.)

For those just joining the discussion, or those who wisely have better things to do between GA’s than remember all these details, I should point out that a major recommendation in the nFOG 2008, and maintained in nFOG 2010, is the division of the existing Form of Government section into two sections.  The first four chapters would be split out on their own, rearranged into three chapters, and called Foundations of Presbyterian Polity.  They would now be the “F” section of the Book of Order and their placement into a new section would emphasize their application to all the other sections of the Book of Order.

In this post I will focus on just the Foundations section and leave the remainder of the Form of Government section for another time.  If you are curious what I said two years ago about it you can check out my previous comments.  As I read back through them today, with the exception of one messed up sentence where I am not sure what I was trying to say, I think my attitude now is still the same as reflected in that post.

I would begin by saying that while the nFOG 2008 did a major reorganization of the first four chapters, nFOG 2010 leaves most of their reorganization in place and has done more modification of the text, mostly to improve readability.  To my ear the Foundations section reads better than before.  A good example of this language:

In this particular case I do think the nFOG 2010 reads better, theologically presents the might acts of God in a more logical manner, and I like the filling out of the nature of the triune God in the first line.

It does leave the question of whether this is the best opening for the Book of Order and as I argued before I still favor the current language for its force and gravity:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. [G-1.0100a]

There are places where subtle changes were made that, to my reading, do have significant theological or historical implications.  One example is from the last line of F-2.02 on the confessions as subordinate standards:

First, I appreciate the extended Latin phrase being included as well as the use of italics rather than quotations.  But the change from the “call of the Spirit” to “power of the Spirit” is one that I currently am not persuaded of.  While I would fully endorse the power of the Holy Spirit, when used in the context of the church being reformed I would prefer referencing the initial action of God through the call of the Spirit in that reformation.  We affirm that reformation is not of human initiative but of God’s.

There is a similar change when the new version speaks of the Protestant Reformation:

Again, there are a couple of subtle changes that, to my thinking, make different theological and historical statements about the Reformation confessions.  The switch from “identifies with” to “upholds” is one that I think I disagree with, but I am still wavering.  On the one hand, “upholds” distances us from the confession like “it happened and we acknowledge it.”  On the other hand, while it has a greater sense of distance “upholds” does have, to me, a greater sense of affirmation or attachment than “identifies.”  I’m still debating these changes with myself.

One change that I am grateful for is the return of a paragraph related to the historical nature and “stance” of confessional standards:

Well, if you have gotten this far in my post I thank you for caring so much about this.  As I said there are several subtle changes that have been made that may affect whether you do, or do not, like the revision.  I won’t give any more side-by-side comparisons, but another subtle change that jumped out at me was the opening paragraph of the Principles of Order and Government where nFOG 2008 talks about the historic principles of church order “which have been a part of our common heritage in this nation,” the nFOG 2010 drops the “in this nation.”  While I can appreciate an attempt to remove a nationalistic tone, I do want to affirm that the PC(USA) is only 25 years old and there are almost 300 years of American Presbyterianism before that.  In addition, I think the qualifier is useful since in my study of Presbyterianism globally there are certain distinctions to church order in the American branch that these principles reflect.

I would note that two additions I appreciate are the inclusion of more scripture references throughout the section as well as more attention paid to the triune God.  And while the changes in structure are few, I would also complement the task force on the few times they did move sentences and ideas around with putting them in places that they more logically fit.

I suspect that most G.A. Junkies have particular sections of the Book of Order that they appreciate and value for the precise wording as well as the doctrine behind the section.  I have three in the Foundations section that are dear to me.  In my post from the last go-round two years ago I ranted about the change to the beginning of Chapter 1 where Jesus Christ as the head of the Church has been moved one section later.  I am pleased to say that the Great Ends of the Church have remained untouched.  But between nFOG 2008 and nFOG 2010 they had to go and change the section [F-1.0301] that begins “The Church of Jesus Christ is the provisional demonstration of what God intends for all of humanity.” and ends “The Church is called to give shape and substance to this truth. The Church is further called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”  In nFOG 2010 it is no longer the “provisional demonstration” but is to demonstrate the gifts through Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, it does not risk its life for the mission but for the community. No only do I miss the specific wording that I have memorized and love, but it gives the appearance that is intended to be a missional document is not quite as missional.  Then again you can’t please everyone.

I think that is more than enough for right now.  I am still working on the new Government section of nFOG 2010 and will post on that probably in a week or two.