The problem with General Assembly task forces is that they always seem to try to do more than we originally asked them to do.
Example: The attempt by a task force to study ordination foundered when it tried to define new language for God to save us from “him/her.” The rather useful suggestions by that group that could have helped us move forward were lost because they tried to go beyond their mandate.
Now the Form of Government Task Force has gone beyond its mandate.
Assigned the task of simplifying the Constitution that has mushroomed into a voluminous, clumsy collection of detailed, statutory laws, they have gone the extra, unneeded mile. They added a “Foundation” document, which simply attempts to write another confession of faith. If we had intended to form a task force to write a new confession I doubt these worthy folk would have been included. Their gifts and experience are in the area of administration and polity, and for that purpose they were selected. Regrettably they have stepped beyond their mandate.
One hopes their next draft will not include an attempt to add a confession. Instead, they would work to eliminate the lengthy guidelines that have made our Constitution swell into a vague swarm of detailed rules, which has stripped it of its Constitutional power. the Book of Order presented at reunion nearly a quarter of a century ago was a deeply flawed document. It was a political treaty written to permit reunion. It has long since needed reworking. We need that task to be done well.
Another mistake often made by Assembly task forces is the way they handle historical material. They often rewrite historic documents in such a way as to sap the force out of them, most often by substituting contemporary language for the historic formulations. The most egregious one here is the loss of the wonderful phrase,
That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it (G-1. 0304).
The replacement is written in mashed potato language: the taste is somewhat familiar, but the bite, the punch, the clarity of the original has been turned to mush. Twenty years ago, the hymnbook editorial committee mashed classic hymn language over and over again. It should not be done to the formative documents of our history.
The other traditional error is the most serious. It changes not only the force and style, it changes the substance of the text. The greatest temptation in an exercise like this is to sneak in a hoped-for change under the rubric of just making editorial changes. The major mistake of this kind is in the lines in 3.0101 and 3.0102 where by dividing the “Lord of the Conscious” from “Notwithstanding … “ in the present Book, the Task Force reduces the second to a mild permission rather than a condition under which freedom of conscious is exercised. In the process, they tip the balance — as some want to do — elevating freedom of conscious and practice above the restraints for the common health of the Church.
When the historic language is ignored, as in recent years, ordination questions become civil rights questions; the phrase in the present book states clearly that making terms and conditions for office too loose or too strict is misuse of our power, not an offense to someone else.
What a great thing it would be if the Task Force would simply take the existing Book of Order and excise all the unnecessary statutory language that has made it swell like a dead fish — chapter 14 being the most unpleasant example. Or perhaps they could simply take the 1956 book of both the PCUS and UPCUSA traditions, correct the sexist language, merge them and come up with a clear, direct, simple constitutional Book of Order. Check your church library. You will probably find one or both of those documents. Read them. Compare them. You’ll be surprised how useful, simple and direct they are.
Charles A. Hammond retired in 1998 after 23 years in executive service, the last eleven at the Presbytery of Philadelphia. From 1995-2001 he served on the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. Since retirement he has served as interim pastor in four churches, most recently at La Jolla Church in San Diego, Calif. He currently resides in Banning, Calif., and welcomes Internet discourse around ideas at chuckh@ljpres.org.
