The 218th General Assembly directed that a proposed revision of our Form of Government, “nFOG” (divided into two sections as “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” and “Revised Form of Government”) be circulated to the church for study and comment. To prepare study material, the Moderator of the 218th has enhanced the original Task Force with representatives of the Assembly Committee that considered the matter. As an ongoing member of the Task Force, I wish to make a few observations.
When the proposed revision was presented to this past Assembly it was clear to the Task Force that there was broad-based but quiet support coming largely from stated clerks and “polity wonks,” those who knew at least some of the history and also the need for the revision. Unfortunately, this support was not heard across the wider church and was not mobilized to advocate the change.
There was, however, outspoken opposition to the nFOG. As the current study goes forward, this opposition and the arguments presented will be heard and should expect scrutiny. When the commissioners to the 218th assigned to consider the matter met, they had before them several formal Overtures counseling delay and study. Advocates of these proposals addressed the committee. In addition during a period of “open hearings” the committee heard from a number of individuals who spoke for delay or against the whole proposal. The case for delay became the committee’s agenda. As the committee did its work, rather than wrestle with the document and then consider if it should be delayed, deliberation focused almost exclusively on the matter and purpose of delay. Consideration of the substance was taken up only after the recommendation to defer was approved and then solely for the purpose of giving suggestions for further work. These suggestions and concerns will be incorporated in the material circulated for study.
Those who counseled defeat or delay expressed a recurring theme that needs to be addressed. They used phrases such as: “The time is not right for this major revision.” “There has been too little time for serious study by the presbyteries.” “The church was given only two weeks to receive and respond to the document.” “The document you have before you is the result of a small group of people, unrepresentative of the church as a whole, a small group of persons with a hidden agenda who are seeking to foist their will on the church against its wishes.” These assertions have gone unchallenged.
To those who will participate in study over the months to come and who will consider the revision of the Form of Government as commissioners to the 219th General Assembly two years from now I offer the following challenge:
Reject the suggestion that this proposal is the result of a small group of ill-willed or misguided folk. The charge is an insult to the discerning work of commissioners elected by the presbyteries to meet in General Assembly since 1989. Faithful commissioners have affirmed and reaffirmed not just that there be a process to produce such a revision but that the evolving product is indeed reflective of and responsive to the need they defined.
Remember that the nFOG was made widely available on the Web at each stage of its development. It was circulated widely in September 2007. Hundreds of folk across the church responded to the draft with suggestions for improvement. The task force considered and responded to them. To suggest that the document delivered to the commissioners in mid-January was somehow “sprung” on the church impugns the many faithful folk who had prayed with, studied with, and entered into dialogue with the task force over its entire two year process, to say nothing of all those who had been attentive to the process going back to 1989.
Seek to understand and improve the proposal but reject perfection. The idea that “there must be something terrible in here somewhere, we haven’t found it yet, but if we study longer we will,” counsels the church into paralysis. We will never produce any document that folk, bent on sowing the seeds of delay and dissention, will not be able to argue is a damning imperfection.
Finally, insist that those who advocate opposition and delay be forthcoming in their history with this project. Over the past 12 years of my direct involvement, I have seen many of the same faces, heard many of the same voices, listened to many of the same arguments for delay. All are welcome to their position and their arguments, but after all these years, it is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst to argue that somehow the church is being “taken by surprise.”
The Task Force on preparing a Revised Form of Government will do what it has been asked to do. We will continue to seek the will of the church and to fulfill the directive of not only the 218th, but also the numerous Assemblies over the past 20 years that have directed that this work be done. The 219th General Assembly may again in 2010 choose to reject this work. But let that rejection result from a serious consideration of the content of the Form of Government. Reject it because the statement of Foundational Principles of governance is inadequate to the task. Reject it because we need a more clear articulation and a set of “rules” (for want of a better word) to which we are comfortable binding ourselves. But let it not be rejected because commissioners to any General Assembly and the year’s subsequent meetings of presbyteries will not trust a generation of commissioners to produce an adequate revision of this magnitude. The Constitution is and can only be the work of the whole people met in representative assemblies. We have no other mechanism for seeking the will of Christ for the church.
Neal E. Lloyd retired in February 2008 as pastor of First Church of Rochester, Minnesota, and is currently living in Wisconsin.
