This Task Force, created
by the 2006 General Assembly, is bringing a report which rewrites the
first four chapters of the Form of Government (the “foundations” of
Presbyterian polity) and offers a replacement for chapters
5-18.
The Task Force was trying
to be as permission-giving as possible; therefore they avoided as many
regulations as they could. This shift of focus from structure toward
function seems to reflect what we are learning from current
organizational theory. Moving away from a regulatory style toward an
“enabling” style also seems healthy in many ways. It might both permit
and encourage a more inclusive and diverse faith community, which would
reflect the inclusiveness of God’s grace which we see in Christ.
At first glance this has
great appeal, since we generally want freedom for ourselves, and we
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, and people who have experienced conflicts begin
imagining “loopholes” that would let “bad behavior” slip through without
corrective procedures.
Aside from the
suspicions that various people may have on the basis of their own
experiences, let me highlight two more general concerns.
First, the proposal
leaves out the formation of Committees on Representation (G-9.0105), and
the groups that make up the diversity of the church and are guaranteed
full participation (G-4.0403) are no longer named. The draft does say
that the church “shall not deny participation or representation to
persons or groups within its membership for any reasons other than those
stated in this Constitution.” In addition, the Articles of Agreement
that effected reunion in 1983 provided for Advocacy Committees on
Women’s Concerns and Racial Ethnic Concerns. Since ancient patterns of
discrimination based on gender, race and ethnicity are still very much
with us, these bodies, too, should be made a part of the Form of
Government, since questions have been raised from time to time 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. In that spirit it replaces the language of
“office” with “ordered ministry”; “governing body” with “council”; and
“union” or “federated” congregations by “joint congregational ministry.”
The “church is mission”
slogan is currently being used 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. The Presbytery of San Diego recently declared itself to be no
longer primarily a “governing body” but a “relational community” that is
“becoming a mission agency.”
There is nothing wrong
with flexibility and noble purposes, but we will still have
disagreements about both belief and action. When controversy arises and
we face clever lawyers on all sides of an issue, we find that we still
need procedural guidelines and criteria for decision-making. We still
need ways to define boundaries, and ways to resolve differences about
how and where these should be drawn.
Since the new draft has
been opposed by a number of groups in the church, many observers think
that it will not be adopted by this Assembly but will be referred for
further analysis and revision. While we can appreciate the need for
careful study and deliberation before taking such a major step, we
believe it is worthy of very serious consideration.
Do
you have opinions
or comments
or questions
about the Form of Government report?
Please send a note,
to be shared here.
