The Rewrite of the Book of Order:
A Big Change Getting Little Attention
by Terry Schlossberg
“The fog comes on little
cat feet,” wrote poet Carl Sandburg. In our case, it is the FOG, the Form
of Government, the first of three sections of the Book
of Order. Our FOG is undergoing a complete rewrite by a small task force
made up largely of presbytery and synod executives, Office of General Assembly
(OGA) staff, and current and former members of the Advisory Committee on the
Constitution. Two racial-ethnic pastors round out the composition of the group
(nine plus OGA staff).
At
the FOG Task Force’s recent meeting, February 22-24 in
The new FOG replaces the first four chapters of the
current Book of Order
The
new FOG is summarily encapsulated in the language of “new reality” that appears
in its introductory Foundations
of Presbyterian Polity document, available along with a complete set of
drafts from the February meeting at http://www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/draftsandupdates.htm.
These three chapters on a total of nine pages would replace the first four
chapters of the current Book of Order.
This part of the rewrite alone is dramatic. Important concepts are lost entirely.
This Readers Digest version of our most basic polity loses much of the meaning
and utility of the original version.
The task force has been put on notice that a rewrite of their
interpretation of the first four chapters will not sit well with many Presbyterians.
Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick met with the task force one morning and repeated
his concern that opposition to wholesale change of the Foundations chapters
could kill the whole project. He urged the task force to bring that section
to the Assembly for a separate vote.
However,
the entire document is being written to depend on the principles expressed
in the Foundations section. Further, the current draft would render the Foundations
portion unamendable for six years.
New FOG as local-option document
A primary emphasis of the rewrite is to limit the FOG to statements
of principles and leave procedures to each of our more than 11,200 governing
bodies, in the form of “handbooks” or “rules.”
Reacting to discussion of what would be removed from the current
Book of Order and go into handbooks
that have no constitutional standing and no prescribed means for amendment,
task force member James Kim, a Dallas-area pastor, remarked that the FOG rewrite
“looks like, smells like local option.” Co-Moderator Sharon Davison, from
the Presbytery of New York, laughed in response. “Of course it does, James.
What do you think we are doing here?”
The
“rule” for changing the “rules” would be likely to vary from body to body.
Task force member Diana Barber, from the Synod of Lakes and Prairies, remarked
at one point: “We are not going to end up with 173 presbyteries that look
exactly like each other.” Such diversity
in procedures would ensure that presbyteries would be free to exercise autonomy
in making and following their own rules.
Kim expressed concern about the increased power this rule-making
would give to the presbyteries. As an example, the procedure in the current
Book of Order that gives presbyters
the right to examine candidates on the floor of presbytery is gone from the
new version. Presbyteries, by their own means, would decide whether floor
examinations may occur. Currently, this procedural right is necessary to the
protection of conscience for presbyters who are not satisfied that a candidate
for ministry has been fully or properly examined in the privacy of a committee.
Language
that helps to define the meaning of “inclusiveness” is an example of what
would become local option. The task force aims to shorten the book by removing
lists. The current Book of Order
provides at least some boundaries for inclusiveness with the use of a list.
General Assemblies have declined to add “sexual orientation” to the list of
what is meant by inclusiveness. The deletion of the lists would leave the
decision about the meaning of “inclusiveness” to each governing body. Co-Moderator
Davison remarked in response to this change that she sees “lots of PJC decisions
ahead interpreting that.”
The pervasive foundational principle of inclusiveness
The
task force is taking care to tie their Foundations piece to the whole of the
FOG by inserting references to it throughout the document. The reference that
was repeated most often at this meeting is commitment to an undefined diversity
and inclusiveness.[1] For example, the draft for Chapter 3, echoing the Foundations,
says, “The representative bodies of the church shall give full expression
of the rich diversity of the church’s membership and shall guarantee full
participation and access to representation in decision making and employment
practices.” In the next paragraph: “Each representative body shall develop
procedures for promoting and reviewing that body’s implementation of the church’s
commitment to inclusiveness and representation.”
Things that change and things that do not
The
February draft of the FOG is a curious combination of dramatic changes and
sameness. For example, the new constitution would make no mention of a General
Assembly Council (GAC), now constitutionally mandated. In discussing the proposal
for this change, one task force member remarked that eliminating the GAC is
“picking an enemy that everybody considers an enemy.” The draft also would
provide for making synods optional (3.0404).
Parliamentary
procedure would be permitted but no longer required. The elimination of the
requirement for use of parliamentary procedure in decision making was proposed
by the PUP Report, but rejected by the General Assembly last summer. Nevertheless,
the FOG task force has brought the question back, writing into its foundational
document ambiguous language that encourages “alternative forms of decision
making.”[2] In its chapter on the governing bodies, it repeats the idea: “Meetings
of representative bodies shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent
edition of Robert’s Rules of Order,
except when it is in contradiction to this Constitution, or by the rules and
process agreed upon by the body” [handbooks or individual governing body “rules”].
The task force itself is operating by an odd form of consensus. Although occasionally
a motion and second were offered, actual votes were not taken at the two meetings
I’ve observed.
On
the other hand, given an opportunity to offer the sort of flexibility that
many of our congregations are calling for, the task force chose to retain
a mandatory medical and pension plan and the restrictions on property ownership.
The task force members had considerable discussion of the effects of mandatory
term limits for elders, which in some cases produce congregations with more
elders than members, but they chose not to provide any flexibility on that
requirement.
The
voluntary nature of per capita would be gone; even the term “per capita” would
be dropped.[3] Readers may wonder whether any existing authoritative interpretation
by courts or G.A. will apply when explicit reference to “per capita” disappears.
Both our courts and the General Assembly have previously deferred to a session’s
sole responsibility to determine the benevolence of a particular congregation.
Encouraging mission or local option?
The General Assembly instructed the task force to “provide leadership
for local congregations as missional communities.” In their discussion, the
task force members argue that they are introducing the simplicity and flexibility
that would free churches to do mission. Churches do want that. It’s what most
Presbyterians mean when they complain that the Book of Order has become more a manual
of operations than a constitution.
This new version of simplicity and flexibility, however, so
far gives the church a reduced and rewritten set of chapters on our preliminary
principles, our confessions, our mission, and our unity (the subjects of the
current first four chapters). In addition, it appears to give each presbytery
extraordinary power to write rules to apply the new FOG’s principle of inclusiveness
in such significant areas as examining candidates, validating ministries,
creating mandatory financial assessments, and determining decision-making
processes.
Presbyterians will want to count the cost that this version
of “simplicity and flexibility” –and shirt-pocket size—introduces.
The task force meets again April 12-14 in