How are your teeth? The Form of Government (FOG) section of the Book of Order will climb onto the dentist’s chair for commissioners’ diagnosis when the 218th General Assembly gathers in San Jose, Calif., this coming June 21-28.
So, how are those teeth? Are they chewing as needed? Are their roots strong? Have they become overcrowded — some needing to be pulled? Maybe they all need to be pulled, in order to make room for a complete set of implants. The New Form of Government (nFOG) Task Force accepted an enormous assignment two years ago, and with extraordinary thoroughness and speed they developed a replacement for the teeth of our denomination’s Constitution (by “teeth” I mean that the FOG section is the part most quoted, most argued, and most specifically directive of the church’s daily tasks). The nFOGTF’s proposals, if adopted, will retain some of the existing teeth, though in a different configuration, but many other teeth would be shipped off for presbyteries’ evaluation and possible use in their regional governmental mouths. Three of the four moderator nominees identify the nFOG proposals to be the top issue coming before this GA (see p. 10). The content of the nFOG’s work has undergone a lot of scrutiny — much in the pages of recent Outlook issues, with other articles still to follow. Yet, so many folks around the denomination find themselves either ambivalent or in the dark on the matter. Why change? Because the Book of Order has become a Pharisee’s playground. In the 25 years since the last wholesale rewriting of the Form of Government, a host of amendments has added scores of pages to this constitutional document, turning it into an operating manual. Trimming the book makes sense. Strengthening the book makes sense, too. The nFOG moves us from a mentality of governance to one of mission with its emphasis upon missional theology and its move to the use of “councils” in place of “governing bodies.” It also reclaims the collegial parity of “teaching elders” and “ruling elders.” Then again, some changes are troublesome. How shall local rulings allow for appeal if the higher governing bodies follow a different set of rules? And, if every one of those amendments adopted over these past 25 years was recognized by deliberative process to be important, why jettison them now? Ambivalence reigns. What should we do about that at this GA? We offer five suggestions for the commissioners’ consideration: 1. Dismiss that nFOG Task Force with deep thanks for their yeoman efforts, but only after they are given one more chance to develop any additional study materials they think would help the rest of the church to grasp their work. 2. Send the nFOG report along with such resources to all the churches and presbyteries for study, soliciting their assessments and their suggestions for improvement. 3. Adopt and implement Overture 70 from Detroit Presbytery, which invites six presbyteries to test-market the nFOG plan for the next two years, and to report back their findings. 4. Form a New Form of Government Review Task Force to provide its own refinements of the nFOG, facilitated by the feedback arising from the whole church, and instructing them to bring back to the 219th GA (2010) proposals for adopting nFOG2. This time-tested process is required prior to adopting new confessions; let’s adapt it to this “teethy” part of the Book of Order. 5. Entrust to the 219th General Assembly the task of assessing the combined efforts of the two nFOG groups, with an eye toward adoption of the refined work then. Change doesn’t come easily to us Presbyterians. The odds that both a majority of the commissioners would approve and that a majority of presbyters in a majority of presbyteries around the country would ratify the nFOG proposals are tiny. The patient whose teeth aren’t obviously bad won’t relish the idea of replacing them all in one fell swoop; neither will many back home elders. If a rush for approval causes the nFOG proposals to get rejected, the hard work of the task force and the opportunity to effect needed change will be squandered for at least a decade. It would be better to seek some second opinions before we try to cut. — JHH
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Clearly, the nFoG is encountering the cost of having ignored key stakeholders - to use business verbiage - in developing its recommendations and conclusions. It was developed in relative isolation, and presented with a certain hubris as though its proposal should be adopted just because a task force recommends it.
As you put it, "The odds that both a majority of the commissioners would approve and that a majority of presbyters in a majority of presbyteries around the country would ratify the nFOG proposals are tiny." That speaks to an exceedingly poor process that failed to present its case, failed to make clear the needs and advantages, failed to thoroughly connect with its audiences and failed to create a proposal and process that speaks from the ground up.
The Assembly should dismiss the nFOG Task Force with thanks. And yes, it might be helpful to charge them with developing additional study materials they think would help the rest of the church to grasp their work.
But I doubt more or better interpretation will help their flawed proposal. It committed our day's mortal sin, which is the audacity of dismissing decades of developed form for a version that was not developed in, of, and from our larger community.