This
year three very significant types of business related to revisions
of the "Form of Government" portion of the Book of Order
will be presented to the General Assembly (GA). The proposed
revisions concentrate power in presbyteries and would have other seriously
negative consequences for our denomination. The items of business
are:
1. Request to authorize appointment of a Task Force to draft a new,
radically-different "Form of Government" section to replace
the 18 chapters which comprise the current "G" section of
the Book of Order.
2. Request for approval to send to the presbyteries for their vote
a complete rewrite of Chapter 14 "Ordination, Certification and
Commissioning," that has been completed.
3. Request for approval of the "A" group of amendments that
make changes in other chapters of the Form of Government that parallel
the changes in the rewrite of Chapter 14 plus six proposed amendments
in the "B" group amendments. These include moving constitutional
questions for officers out of the Form of Government and into the
Directory for Worship, and authorizing presbyteries to allow associate
pastors and interim pastors to become the next permanent pastor.
If adopted, the proposed changes will have a critical and negative
impact on our denominational life.
Problems
with authorizing creation of a Task Force to rewrite
an "entirely different kind of Form of Government"
In the
"rationale" for this proposal to rewrite the Form of Government,
the Office of the General Assembly describes consultations with various
groups who requested "dramatic" changes in the Form of Government.
The proposal to authorize creation of a task force to write an Aentirely
different kind of Form of Government@Cin our current climate of unrestCraises
a number of serious concerns.
1. What
would happen to ordination requirements? The proposal specifies
that G-6.0106b ("fidelity and chastity") and G-8.0201 (all
property held for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church [USA])
would be excluded from the revision process since overtures proposing
changes to both paragraphs are before this assembly. Although the
G-6.0106b paragraph related to ordination is critically important,
other wording equally vital to ordination standards would not be protected.
Section G-6.0108, for example--the subject of the PUP Task Force's
proposed authoritative interpretation--contains these requirements:
"It
is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that persons
who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the
Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions
and the Form of Government . . . It is to be recognized, however,
that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church
(USA) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain
bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted
in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to
seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person
has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made
initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the
responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves."
To believe
that ordination standards would remain intact if a minimalist Form
of Government were to be adopted requires a degree of trust that clearly
is lacking in our denomination as it faces relentless attacks on those
standards.
2. What
would happen to previous "authoritative interpretations"
on other topics, such as per capita, when the constitutional document
has been replaced? Per capita payments have been authoritatively interpreted
to be a voluntary contribution to the work of higher governing bodies.
Would the powers of sessions be expressed in the same way in a dramatically
different Form of Government? Would the previous "authoritative
interpretation" by the GA Permanent Judicial commission stand?
The answers to those questions cannot be known.
3. The
proposal emphasizes the presbytery as the "central governmental
unit" and instructs the task force that the new "Form
of Government shall provide sufficient authority and flexibility to
allow the presbytery to assist congregations in addressing the changing
cultural, economic, and societal challenges in our new millennial
world." A sentence was added to G-9.0103 several years ago stating
that powers not specifically granted to other governing bodies are
given to presbyteries. When that amendment was considered, it was
presented as a simple housekeeping matter. That sentence is now being
used as a basis for concentrating powers in presbyteries. Presbyterians
do not want presbyteries to have "authority" to tell congregations
what their mission is or how they should accomplish it! The current
Form of Government states that "The session is responsible for
the mission and government of the particular church" (G-10.0102).
4. The
proposal states that the Task Force to draft the new Form of Government
shall be guided by the principles proposed by recommendations 1 -
4 from the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the
Church (PUP). The instructions to the task force to write
the new Form of Government further mandate: "They shall incorporate
this new Presbyterian ethos into the Form of Government so that it
truly functions as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s guidebook for
mission." The proposal anticipates a "new Presbyterian ethos@"
before the General Assembly's action on the PUP Report.
5. The
PUP recommendations specified to guide the rewriting include
"urge those who plan and moderate meetings of other governing
bodies, to explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and
decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially
in dealing with potentially divisive issues" (recommendation
4). Consensus decision-making has not proven helpful in resolving
disagreements. Parliamentary procedure was formulated to provide a
process to deal effectively with conflicting ideas and allow the majority
to prevail while protecting minority rights. It is the process specified
in the current Form of Government (G-7.0302, G-9.0302).
The recently introduced "consensus decision making" encouraged
by this PUP recommendation has been used in some GA committees in
the past. It places pressure on participants to conform to the climate
created in the group. It emphasizes persons and feelings rather than
creating a fair and safe forum for a contest of ideas. Consensus decision
making forces a member to break the unity of the body in order to
disagree. This is especially intimidating and emotionally charged
when dealing with divisive issues and can effectively allow a persistent
minority to determine the outcome instead of the majority.
It cannot
be known how the issues raised above would be resolved. That is exactly
the problem. The meaning of the new Form of Government would be determined
by authoritative interpretations by future GAs and GA Permanent Judicial
Commissions. How many Americans would be willing to take the risk
of having a replacement proposed for the United States constitution?
The identical danger occurs with a proposed rewrite of the Presbyterian
Church
(USA) Form of Government. We already have a Form of Government. It
may be imperfect, but its meaning is known and the protections and
powers it affords to individuals and to governing bodies at each level
are clear. Proposing a completely new Form of Government is to invite
chaos into a situation already characterized by conflict and lack
of trust.
Problems
with the rewrite of Chapter 14
A proposed
replacement for the entire G-14 chapter ("Ordination, Certification
and Commissioning") has been completed. The GA is asked to approve
sending this amendment of the constitution to the presbyteries for
their vote. The "rationale" provided states the intent to
make Chapter 14 "shorter and more flexible in favor of presbyteries."
The "response
to referral" which accompanies the rewritten Chapter 14 states
that the rewriting "does not intend to introduce new or different
provisions or practice." However, this objective was not achieved,
since numerous significant changes were incorporated into the proposed
wording. Substantive changes remain buried in this long document,
making it difficult to see what the changes are and judge what effect
they will have. The proposed changes ought to be considered as separate
amendments that can be fully evaluated and judged on their individual
merits. Some of the significant changes incorporated into the rewrite
of Chapter 14 include:
(1) Blurring
of the distinctions between officers. Although the significance
of "ordination" to our offices of Deacon, Elder, and Minister
of the Word and Sacrament is emphasized in the current Chapter 14,
the proposed revision completely reorganizes the material, beginning
with paragraphs describing "ordained ministry," "certified
ministry," and "commissioned ministry" as though they
are of parallel significance in our polity (compare the three paragraphs
in the current G-14.0100 with the four paragraphs in the proposed
G-14.0100). The revision then intersperses Certified Christian Educator
information and commissioned Lay Pastor information in with the Deacon,
Elder, and Minister of the Word and Sacrament information. This blurs
the distinction between officers (Deacons, Elders, and Ministers of
the Word and Sacrament) and specialized church workers.
(2) Changes
status of Christian Educators. The proposed revision gives
Certified Christian Educators a status parallel to Minister of the
Word and Sacrament by adding the "constitutional questions"
for Certified Christian Educators and constructing the final question
to match most of the wording used in the final question for Minister
of the Word and Sacrament (see proposed
G-14.0330).
(3)
Allows presbytery pre-emptive authority in dissolving pastoral
relationships. Although the current Chapter 14 of the Book
of Order specifies that either the pastor or the congregation must
initiate a request for dissolution of a pastoral relationship (current
G-14.0501b), the proposed Chapter 14 revision allows the presbytery
to "take pre-emptive action" (wording used in rationale
for amendment B6) to dissolve a pastoral relationship without a request
from the pastor or from the congregation. The wording in the proposed
rewrite as G-14.0511 is:
"The
call approved by the presbytery cannot be changed or dissolved except
by consent of the presbytery, at the request of the pastor or associate
pastor, at the request of the church by action of the congregation
or when the presbytery, after consultation with the minister and
the congregation, finds that the church's mission under the Word
imperatively demands it."
Although
the current Form of Government does specify in G-11.0103 that the
presbytery has power "to establish the pastoral relationship
and to dissolve it at the request of one or both of the parties, or
when it finds that the church's mission under the Word imperatively
demands it," that concept is not found in the current chapter
G-14 where dissolution of pastoral relationships is discussed.
Apparently the authors of the Chapter 14 rewrite found it extremely
important to clearly establish this third path to dissolution because
they also added as the proposed G-14.0613:
"The
presbytery, through its committee on ministry or an administrative
commission, may inquire into reported difficulties in a congregation
and may dissolve the pastoral relationship if, after consultation
with the minister, the session, and the congregation (G-7.0304a(3)),
it finds the church's mission under the Word imperatively demands
it."
What
congregation does not have "difficulties"? Besides those
two references to be added as a part of the G-14 rewrite (new G-14.0511
and new G-14.0613), the separate amendment B6 adds yet another sentence
at the end of the proposed G-14.0613 paragraph: "The relationship
may be dissolved if the presbytery determines that the pastoral/congregational
match is incompatible." These provisions would certainly be seen
as a threat to congregations and pastors that if they are out of step
with the presbytery, their pastoral relationship could be in danger.
(4) Creation
of "advisory handbooks." The proposed revision
creates "advisory handbooks" to be developed by General
Assembly agencies in consultation with the Office of the General Assembly.
It removes most of the Inquiry process, Candidacy process, and oversight
of the work of ministry from the Book of Order, placing them in "advisory
handbooks." Although the "advisory handbooks" are not
binding on the presbyteries, the problem is that once material has
been removed from the Book of Order and placed in the advisory handbooks,
approval by the General Assembly and a majority of presbyteries would
no longer be needed to change the requirements.
Presbyteries
would be authorized to develop their own requirements and national
unity would be lost, because we would end up with conflicting policies
across the judicatories. A Form of Government with minimal content
would leave a vacuum that would be filled, but the majority of the
GA and the majority of the presbyteries would not be able to determine
how it is filled, as they do now, since critical content would no
longer be a part of the constitution.
(5) Pastoral
relationships changed. The proposed revision changes the
categories of pastoral relationships, allows new categories to be
created to fit individual circumstances (proposed G-14.0550), and
changes the wording describing procedures by which these relationships
are established. For Associate Pastor, the revision removes the sentence,
"The call to an associate pastor shall specify the particular
functions to be fulfilled," but retains the sentence, "An
associate pastor shall be directed in his or her work by the pastor
in consultation with the session" (see proposed G-14.0513).
Problems
with the other amendments
The "A2"
and "A3" groups of amendments add changes to other chapters
of the Form of Government that parallel the changes in the proposed
rewrite of Chapter G-14. Materials provided by the Office of the General
Assembly state, "If amendment A1 [rewrite of chapter 14] is approved,
the following amendments shall be approved." The three "A2a"
amendments deal with "advisory handbooks." Amendment A2a(1)
adds a definition of "advisory handbooks" to the Preface
of the Book of Order. Amendment A2a(2) adds a paragraph about "advisory
handbooks" to G-9. Amendment A2a(3) adds a paragraph on "advisory
handbooks" to G-11.
Amendment
A2b moves the section dealing with dissolution of relationship and
renunciation of jurisdiction for deacons, elders, and Ministers of
the Word and Sacrament from G-14 to G-6, but retains the current wording.
Amendment A2c moves release from exercise of ordained office and restoration
from G-11 and G-14 to G-6. The wording is less specific than the current
Form of Government and makes restoration to ordained office much easier
(dropping the requirement to reaffirm ordination vows and resume a
ministry that qualifies for membership in the presbytery). Amendment
A2d moves the section on employing ministers of other churches from
G-14 to G-11, but retains the current wording. Amendment A2e removes
information on validated ministry from G-14 and places reworded information
in G-11.
Amendment
B1 would move all of the ordination and installation service information
and the constitutional questions for officers out of the Form of Government
section of the Book of Order and place them in the Directory for Worship.
This was defeated previously and should be defeated again. Moving
the constitutional questions to the Directory for Worship makes the
questions appear to only be part of the liturgy to be used in a service
of ordination and installation. The questions belong in the Form of
Government to emphasize their importance as containing defining beliefs
with which all officers must agree.
Amendment
B2 would insert a section into G-14 which would allow a presbytery
to grant to a candidate who had completed all requirements for ordination
except the exams, a "license to preach" and a "limited
license to administer the sacraments." It is not appropriate
for the sacraments to be administered by persons who are not ordained.
Since a Minister of the Word and Sacrament would be assigned to the
licensed person as a mentor and supervisor, that Minister of the Word
and Sacrament would be the appropriate person to administer the sacraments
for that congregation.
Commissioned
Lay Pastors (who are required to be elders and therefore are ordained
officers) can already be authorized to administer the sacraments and
could provide another option for administering the sacraments in a
small church without a pastor. Permitting presbyteries to grant such
licenses would allow the functions of Minister of the Word and Sacrament
to be performed by persons who may not meet the standards for ordination
as a church officer, and could be abused as a way to circumvent those
requirements.
Amendment
B3 would remove the need for synod approval from the alternative process
created by a presbytery for a candidate who had failed one or more
ordination exams twice. Although initially this seems innocuous, it
is another example of presbyteries being granted expanded powers.
The justification that "Synods often simply approve such processes
without careful scrutiny" is a poor justification. Our polity
wisely provides for higher governing body review and approval to ensure
that standards are upheld and that requirements are similar between
presbyteries.
Amendment
B4 would allow an associate pastor to be eligible to be the next installed
pastor or co-pastor with a 2/3 affirmative vote of presbytery. Amendment
B5 would allow an interim pastor, interim co-pastor, or interim associate
pastor to become the next permanent or designated pastor by a 2/3
vote of presbytery. Allowing the possibility of becoming the next
pastor would place both associate pastors and interim pastors in the
awkward position of being torn between doing their best work in their
current call or positioning themselves to fill the permanent pastor
position. This is yet another means of strengthening the autonomy
of presbyteries. It would destroy national unity, create confusion,
and would be extremely unwise.
Amendment
B6 strengthens the option for "pre-emptive action" by a
presbytery to dissolve a pastoral relationship without a request from
the pastor or from the congregation. It would add the sentence "The
relationship may be dissolved if the presbytery determines that the
pastoral/congregational match is incompatible" to the newly-created
paragraph in Chapter 14. This would create presbytery-initiated dissolutions
when neither the pastor nor the congregation has requested an end
to the relationship.
While
there are some portions of the Book of Order that could be
more carefully crafted, no document is perfect. The Form of Government
in its present state is very usable. Pastors and Presbyterians are
familiar with the constitution as it exists and there is a long history
of authoritative interpretations by the General Assembly and the GA
Permanent Judicial Commission interpreting the meaning of the current
constitution. Expanded powers of the presbytery, woven throughout
the proposed changes and paired with the proposed amendments to G-14,
strengthen the power of a presbytery. Giving presbyteries power to
"pre-emptively" dissolve a pastoral relationship when neither
the pastor nor the congregation had requested it raises the possibility
for chilling scenarios.
For example,
if a session does not pay per capita, would that congregation receive
"assistance" in the form of re-education from the presbytery
with "authority" over its mission? If the session chooses
to support primarily non-Presbyterian Church (USA) missionaries, would
that congregation need "assistance" in the form of re-education
from the presbytery? If the presbytery did not succeed in re-educating
the session to conform to the presbytery's perspective, would those
actions result in the presbytery determining that the relationship
between the pastor and that congregation needs to be dissolved?
No one
can know what the effect of the changes would be, and that is precisely
the problem. To authorize the radical changes which are placed before
this General Assembly would only serve to upset the peace and unity
of the church and would be a significant and needless distraction
from the work of ministry so desperately needed in our congregations
and our culture. All of the proposed items of business related to
amending the Form of Government should be disapproved.
Carol
Shanholtzer is an elder at Faith Presbyterian Church in Minnetonka,
Minnesota
