A Critique of the Proposed Replacement for the Form of Government in the Book of Order

A completely rewritten Form of Government is being sent to the presbyteries for their votes. It would have far-reaching impact on our denomination. This amendment would replace the entire Form of Government section of the Book of Order with two sections: a new section called Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and an entirely-rewritten Form of Government section. An “Advisory Handbook for Councils for the Development of Policies and Procedures Required by the Form of Government” was commended to governing bodies by the General Assembly and follows the text of the replacement Form of Government in the amendment packet.

The General Assembly (GA) made a number of changes to the draft documents they received, including the correction of several of the serious problems. However, most of the changes made by the GA were minor modifications in wording with no significant effect. The end result is that almost all of the fundamental deficiencies that characterized the draft which was sent to the GA remain in the version which is being sent to the presbyteries for their votes.

A new fourth section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, will be added to the Book of Order

The Book of Order currently consists of three sections: Form of Government, Directory for Worship, and Rules of Discipline. If the amendment sent to the presbyteries is approved, a fourth section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity (numbered with a prefix “F-”), will be added as the first section of the Book of Order. The ramifications of having a separate “Foundations” section cannot be known unless the documents are put into use and authoritative interpretations are made by the GA or by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC). Foundations provision F-3.03 states the following:

The statements contained in this section, ‘The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity,’ describe the ecclesiological and historical commitments on which the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) rests. Provisions of any part of this Constitution are to be interpreted in light of the whole Constitution. No provision of the Book of Order can of itself invalidate any other. Where there are tensions and ambiguities between provisions, it is the task of councils and judicial commissions to resolve them in such a way as to give effect to all provisions.

In its “Comment” to the GA, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) wrote: “The creation of a new section of the Book of Order requires consideration of both its contents and how they relate to the other parts of the Book of Order.”

Although much of the material in the Foundations section is included in the first few chapters of the current Form of Government, changing just a few words or sentences can have a significant impact. For example, our current Form of Government in G-2.0500b states, “Thus, the creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people.” The new Foundations section retains that concept using different wording. The second paragraph of section F-2.01, however, also adds a sentence declaring that the creeds and confessions of this church “appeal to the universal truth of the Gospel while expressing that truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time.” [emphasis added] Of course each confessional statement was written in a specific historic and cultural context. But, to state that in the Book of Confessions, authors of the creeds and confessions expressed truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time, is a far different claim than acknowledging historical context. The new statement explicitly invites the possibility that faulty cultural assumptions could have resulted in inaccurate interpretations of Scripture being incorporated into the Book of Confessions. It clouds the issue of how the contents of the Book of Confessions, our subordinate authority, will be authoritatively interpreted by the GA and the GAPJC to apply to our denominational life in the future. For example, one of the constitutional questions requires officers to “sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do and…be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God” (W-4.4003c). Will this requirement contained in the Directory for Worship section of the Book of Order take on a different meaning because of that new sentence included in the Foundations section that describes the purpose of confessional statements? Will our confessional exposition of Scripture, which specifies that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, be interpreted in the future to be a product of “social and cultural assumptions” of the time rather than God’s unchanging truth?

Foundations section sets no theological limits and mandates inclusion of “all persons and groups” as officers

Another highly significant change in the Foundations section is the diversity provision, F-1.0403, which states:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

Does the church really want to adopt the wording “regardless of…theological conviction”? Does the church truly want to approve a provision stating that the PC(USA) “shall guarantee full participation…in… governance…to all persons or groups within its membership”—thereby making ordination to office a right of every church member? When these documents go to presbyteries for their votes, they can no longer be amended. Presbyters must vote “yes” or “no” on the wording as it is received.

Impact on the “fidelity/chastity” requirement cannot be known

The “fidelity/chastity” requirement currently found in G-6.0106b is retained in the proposed replacement Form of Government as G-2.0104b. Presbyteries are therefore being asked to approve a document which states in G-2.0104b that “fidelity/chastity” is required for officers while section F-1.0403 (quoted above) guarantees full participation in governance to all persons or groups within its membership. Section F-3.03 (quoted above) requires that conflicts be resolved in a way that will “give effect to all provisions.” However, when provisions are mutually-exclusive, that is not possible. Which of these mutually-exclusive provisions will prevail? If the replacement to the Form of Government is approved, the answer will be determined in the future by an authoritative interpretation either by the GA or by the GAPJC. The concern of many is that because the guarantee of participation in governance is in the Foundations section, material in the Foundations section is likely to be considered to have more weight than provisions in the other three sections of the Book of Order. No one can know the outcome before an authoritative interpretation is made. All that is required for an authoritative interpretation is a majority vote of one General Assembly.

We become a hierarchical, rather than a connectional, denomination

The Book of Order, in G-9.0103, currently describes our governing bodies as being “separate and independent.” In the 1992 remedial case which determined that per capita contributions by sessions are voluntary, Central v. Long Island (Remedial Case 204-5), the GAPJC wrote in its decision:

These issues go to the heart of our Presbyterian system of church governance. Our system is unique. It neither imposes decisions from the top down nor allows particular churches to operate in a vacuum…. While our Book of Order speaks in terms of “higher governing bodies,” we acknowledge that our system contemplates a partnership of church governance in which each governing body has responsibilities, exercises authority, and carries out mission in particular areas (G-9.0103).

Instead of describing governing bodies as “separate and independent,” the new Foundations section vaguely describes them only as “distinct” (F-3.0203). In “What is Missional Ecclesiology?,” a paper offered by OGA as an on-line resource accompanying these amendments, Paul Hooker (one of the four writers of the new documents) states, “As sessions guide and govern the work of congregations, as presbyteries nurture, guide, and govern the work of sessions, and as synods and the General Assembly support and govern the work of presbyteries…” [emphasis added].

Although the specific word “govern” is not used in the replacement Form of Government in describing relationships between governing bodies, the hierarchical concept it denotes is unmistakably present in multiple places, including the structure for mission. Currently each governing body carries out mission in its own sphere of responsibility and authority. Under the current Form of Government, the session is responsible for the “mission and government” of a congregation (G-10.0102). Under the replacement Form of Government, this is no longer the case. The General Assembly has the responsibility and power to “establish[ing] a comprehensive mission strategy and priorities for the church” (G-3.0501a); a synod’s “responsibility may include developing, in conjunction with its presbyteries, a broad strategy for the mission of the church within its bounds and in accord with the larger strategy of the General Assembly” (G-3.0401a); the synod “is charged with …developing, in conjunction with its presbyteries, joint plans and objectives for the fulfillment of mission, providing encouragement and guidance to its presbyteries and overseeing their work” (G-3.0403a); and, interestingly, a presbytery has responsibility for “assisting congregations in developing mission and participating in the mission of the whole church” (G-3.0301c), has authority to “develop strategy for the mission of the church in its district” (G-3.0303a), and “leads and guides the witness of its congregations” (G-3.0301). The session is left out of the chain entirely and its responsibility is limited to “leading the congregation in participating in the mission of the whole church” (G-3.0201c).

Leaving the session out of the chain was not an oversight. When someone on the Assembly committee moved to amend the wording to give the session the authority for the mission of the congregation, Presbytery Executive Paul Hooker (one of the authors of the documents and a resource person to the Assembly committee), spoke against amending the language, saying that such a change would begin to deflect away from the authors’ intent because the amendment sees mission as the prerogative of a congregation when the church exists to serve the mission of God, not our own mission. A basic flaw in Hooker’s argument is the premise which assumes that the session is incapable of discerning the mission God intends for that congregation but that the hierarchy of governing bodies is able to discern God’s will and convey those instructions to the congregation from the GA, through the synod, and through the presbytery.

Under both the current and the proposed Form of Government (G-3.0101) “The jurisdiction of each council is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher council. Powers not mentioned in this Constitution are reserved to the presbyteries.” This means that if the Book of Order does not expressly give a power to the session, the session does not have that power.

Other notable manifestations of a hierarchical structure can be seen at a congregational level. Currently in G-7.0103, “The members of a particular church voluntarily put themselves under the leadership of their officers, whom they elect.” In the replacement Form of Government G-1.0103, however, “The members of a congregation put themselves under the leadership of the session and the higher councils (presbytery, synod, and General Assembly).”

The instructions in the Advisory Handbook “Policies and Procedures Guide for the Work of the Session” include: “What follows is a listing of those areas in which a presbytery is required to or justified in reviewing the work of the session of a congregation.”

The Handbook then presents a chart listing 45 references to sections in the Foundations and the replacement Form of Government. It summarizes the topic of the cited constitutional provisions and lists “Questions or Options to Consider” for the presbytery’s review of the session. Many questions are routine; others go beyond what would now be considered standard. These are some of the questions:

Each council shall develop procedures and mechanisms for promoting and reviewing its implementation of the church’s commitment to inclusiveness and representation. Has the session developed such procedures and mechanisms? …. Elections in the congregation are to be fair, just, and inclusive. Is a nominating process in place that represents the diversity of the congregation and is it made up of a majority not currently in active service as ruling elders or deacons? Is evidence given of the concerns for diversity being addressed? … Meetings conducted decently and in order. Is some form of procedure agreed to and followed? … Has the presbytery initiated discussions with the session as to mutually beneficial mission activities? … Are any directives from the presbytery properly recorded?

All of these examples demonstrate a relationship between governing bodies which is very different from our current governance.

Other serious problems also remain in the documents

Significant problems are found in numerous areas of the documents proposed to replace the current Form of Government. Among the important areas of concern are the following:

• The opening sentence of Foundations (F-1.01) expresses universalism, stating “God…redeems… all people.” Although the Book of Order is not our primary source for theology, one would expect that the theological statements it contains would accurately reflect our confessional beliefs.
• Many of the specifics now included in our Form of Government have been removed from the new documents. Each governing body will need to write and adopt its own rules for how those situations will be handled. This means a loss of church-wide standard procedures in such basic matters as how Pastor Nominating Committees relate to presbyteries and how ministers move from one church or presbytery to another. Each presbytery is free to set its own rules within the broad boundaries of the five sentences describing the call process in the proposed G-2.08.
• Approval by a majority of the presbyteries is needed for amendments to the Book of Order, but such approval is not needed for changes to manuals of governing bodies. Key matters, such as how persons prepare for the ministry, including the number and subjects of ordination exams and how they will be graded, have been removed from the replacement Form of Government. These will need to be written and incorporated into General Assembly manuals. If the replacement for the Form of Government is approved, a majority of commissioners to any future General Assembly is free to change any of those requirements without approval by the majority of presbyteries.
• The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) does not typically take “positions” on matters before the GA, but it did take a position opposing the replacement of the Form of Government because of its direct impact on the GAPJC’s work. The GAPJC stated the following in its document:

Authoritative Interpretations (AIs) are interpretations of specific wording. If one or more words are changed in the text, it may no longer be said that a prior AI authoritatively interprets the new wording—such an interpretation would require either a new GA action or a new GAPJC decision. The interpretive history of the Book of Order represents decades of work on the part of the church working out procedures for pastoral call processes, Freedom of Conscience rights, Committee on Ministry authority, etc., which will be called into question by new wording. [emphasis in original]

The GAPJC called particular attention to the lack of due process requirements for pastors in termination processes, noting that provisions in the current G-9.0505(b) 1 and 2 contain precise language and that the interpretive history of those provisions contains at least nine separate GA and GAPJC Authoritative Interpretations related to those requirements. The GAPJC noted that the replacement Form of Government is silent on specific due process requirements and clearly renders the history of past Authoritative Interpretations invalid.

• Currently G-4.0301e reads, “Decisions shall be reached in governing bodies by vote, following opportunity for discussion, and a majority shall govern.” In the replacement document section F-3.0205, the words “and discernment” were added, so the sentence reads: “Decisions shall be reached in councils [governing bodies] by vote, following opportunity for discussion and discernment, and a majority shall govern.” [emphasis added] The new wording indicates that discussion alone is not an adequate process before voting since there must be (“shall”) opportunity for discussion “and” discernment. That wording demonstrates that ordinary parliamentary process following Roberts’ Rules of Order is not adequate and something more is required, but what that provision will be interpreted to mean cannot be known now. After attending the 2003 GA of the Uniting Church of Australia, which uses a “consensus method” of decision-making, Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons wrote an article1 recommending that the PC(USA) further explore consensus decision-making. Moving in that direction would fit with this change in wording.

Familiar terms are replaced with unfamiliar ones

Although the most significant changes are the substantive ones, a sampling of which has been described in this paper, presbyters should be also aware that familiar terminology is replaced with unfamiliar terms. The term “governing bodies” disappears and is replaced with “councils.” “Officer” and “office” (referring to the offices of deacon, elder, and minister of the Word and Sacrament) become obsolete and are replaced by “ordered minister” and “ordered ministry.” (Therefore elders would be “ordered ministers,” not “officers.”) The term “officer” is redefined to mean only “officer of a council [governing body].” “Elder” is replaced with the current alternative term “ruling elder.” “Minister of the Word and Sacrament” is replaced with the current alternative term “teaching elder.”

Conclusion: It is unwise to discard our entire basis for government in exchange for these fundamentally-flawed documents

It is difficult to overstate the significance of replacing the entire Form of Government with the completely rewritten material being presented to the presbyteries. The contents have not simply been consolidated, but rather have been substantively changed in such basic ways as to mandate unlimited inclusiveness, establish a hierarchical rather a connectional relationship between governing bodies, and place virtually all of the interpretive history of the Book of Order in jeopardy. The significance of adding a fourth section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, on interpretation of the other three sections of the Book of Order cannot be known in advance of adopting the document.

The consequences of making so many significant, substantive changes without carefully considering the ramifications of each one should be a cause for genuine concern for all presbyters. The turmoil caused by the replacement of the entire Form of Government is the last thing our denomination needs at this difficult time in our history. We would be far wiser to amend our current Book of Order as needed instead of discarding the entire basis for our government in exchange for these fundamentally-flawed documents.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Sep/Oct 2010).