The current effort to revise the Form of Government began in 1989 with the formation of a Special Committee on the Nature of the Church and the Practice of Governance. As summarized in the 1991 minutes:
The Special Committee … was established by the 201st General Assembly … out of referrals from previous assemblies and … discussions in [various] General Assembly Committee[s], to “make a thorough study of the nature of the church and its practice of governance.” (Minutes, 1991, page 425)
In the years after reunion, each former “stream” discovered how “regulatory” our constitutions had become as we sought to resolve conflicting practices through constitutional amendment. The Special Committee, reporting in 1993, included a recommendation there be a major revision of the Book of Order grow[ing] out of two issues originally assigned to the special committee: “Theological, ecclesiastical, and governance implications of the changes in structure and design of the last two decades;” and “The presence of distinct experiences and practice of governance emerging from the different racial and ethnic communities within our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” (Minutes, 1989, Part I, p. 121).
It further recommended, “the Moderator appoint a … Special Committee to Revise the Book of Order. The special committee shall review and make recommendations about condensing the Book of Order, reducing procedural and regulatory provisions, allowing greater flexibility in responding to the needs of the people of God, and shall emphasize that which is foundational. The foundational portion of the Book of Order is not to be amended easily and will require a two-thirds majority vote of the presbyteries to ratify [emphasis added.]
As it turned out, these recommendations were referred to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution for further study. At each subsequent meeting of the General Assembly the ACC reported serious reflection on the issues presented by the “Nature of the Church” study and its follow-up consultations with stated clerks and others across the church. In the end it was in 1996 that the Advisory Committee requested and received permission to go forward with a formal response to the referrals. They proposed extensive consultation, open hearings at subsequent Assemblies, and the presentation of a final report to the Assembly meeting in 1999.
As the moderator of that writing team and then as a member of the ACC and the current Task Force, I trace my direct involvement in this work to that 1996 action. Over the entire period the work has rested on Assembly-approved and reaffirmed definitions of our Constitutional material. They are:
Foundational material contains the concepts and principles that have developed throughout the life of the PC(USA) as a part of the Reformed tradition. It emerges from the theological, philosophical, and historical experience of the community to become the symbol of the covenant to which the members of the PC(USA) adhere. As such, it is the essential basis for our common effort in ministry and the guide for our relationships with one another and with those outside our fellowship. It constitutes the point from which our future aspirations are projected and is therefore essential to the continuity of our mission.
Binding policies are those policies that apply the “Foundational Principles” from which they derive and to which they are subordinate. The general welfare of the PC(USA) and the universal applicability of the binding policies to the fulfillment of the church’s mission require the voluntary submission of members and officers to them and their enforceability by more inclusive parts of the church governing bodies and officers.
Advisory practices permit the whole church to seek unity without requiring uniformity. In addition to such advisory material currently in the Form of Government, the General Assembly will approve administrative procedures intended for churchwide application. When such procedures relate to General Assembly functions, they shall be binding upon the General Assembly, but advisory to other governing bodies. The General Assembly should maintain and publish a compilation of current procedures. Other governing bodies may approve such advisory procedures or initiate procedures of their own.
Dialogue was extensive across the church among clerks and other “professional polity people.” Yet the wider church was not sufficiently engaged and (by action of the 2000 Assembly) the whole matter ended up as a Web site piece on Foundational Principles of Presbyterian Governance available to any who might care to seek it out.
But the energy to seek a more flexible, less regulatory Form of Government would not rest. Over several years proponents pursued a significant re-write of Chapter 14 (the most frequently amended chapter in the existing FOG.) This was finally approved in 2006. This partial restatement only highlighted the need, endorsed by repeated Assemblies since 1989, for a comprehensive revision. Even though I had “been through all this before,” I was honored and pleased that the moderators of the 215th, 216th and 217th Assemblies asked me to serve on this recent Task Force to prepare for the church a revised Form of Government. This task force fulfilled the task not only of the assembly that called for its appointment but of the initial mandate approved over a decade before. It fulfilled its task in the 15 months assigned to it. The document now before the church for study is without doubt the most complete fulfillment of the charge yet produced.
Neal E. Lloyd retired as pastor of First Church of Rochester, Minn., in February 2008 and is currently living in Wisconsin.
