Day 4

Monday morning, June 23, Form of Government (FOG) Committee
The opening devotional was led by one of the YADs. She taught us a simple song in an African language that essentially proclaimed, “I believe.” Catchy tune, we were accompanied on a jimbe (a kind of African drum). We repeated it multiple times until we had it down. She and another YAD then began reading a Psalm (96?) simultaneously: one in English and one in Spanish.

Introduction to the work of the committee
The moderator revealed that someone had come to him saying that they had a group together and they were going to “throw this thing out.” He asked all the commissioners to come with their opinions and conclusions, but to remain open to learning something new, to having an opinion changed, and to being engaged in the process. He cautioned that when they get to the point of making their motion (I haven’t pulled up the agenda, but I’m sensing that’s late in the process), if it doesn’t rule the day, an amended document may go to the GA that won’t have their input.

Introduction and questions from a representative from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution
The ACC rep gave a history showing that there have been requests from GA’s going back 15 years or more to have the Form of Government changed. He shared that the FOG Task Force had shared an initial document with them, they had studied it thoroughly and given feedback, most of which had been incorporated. He indicated that he would be bringing recommendations to the committee from the ACC for some additional changes. He made it clear that there are times that the committees have to receive advice from the ACC but that they are never required to follow it. He also outlined that they have the following options for action:
1. Approval of the new Form of Government
2. Disapproval of the new Form of Government
3. Approval with amendment
· Rewording of report
· Change procedure for approval
· Provide provisional adoption
4. Referral for study
· Without a plan for study
· With a plan for study

Small Group Work
The committee meets around tables. They began at about 10:30 a.m. sharing with one another their greatest concerns regarding the FOG. They reported the top concerns to the moderator in writing.

Reports from Each of the Overture Advocates
Presbyteries send overtures to the General Assembly, especially when something big like the proposed new FOG is coming through. Each presbytery sending an overture gets to send an advocate to speak to why they think their overture should be taken seriously and to clarify questions about its intent. Presbyteries that concur with someone else’s overture also get to send advocates to speak. There were scads of overtures, a handful of concurrances, and lots of advocates lined up to speak. This took most of the afternoon.

REFLECTIONS
The members of this committee have their work cut out for them! That may well be the case for all of the committees, but it’s pretty overwhelming to try to understand what all is being proposed in this significant overhaul of the Book of Order and what the ramifications of it will be. For example, to do their job adequately, committee members should have read the side-by-side copy sent to them showing everything in the current Book of Order and everything in the new Form of Government. Additions and deletions become clearer in this light. Then, they needed to read the advice of the ACC on the whole thing. On top of that, they needed to read each of the overtures and try to discern what God’s will is on them. Ideally, they would have also read critiques of the FOG from lobby groups in the denomination from across the theological spectrum. That could help them understand perspectives different from their own and open them further to the Spirit’s leading. In short, preparation for attending a GA as a commissioner needs to be taken seriously and started well in advance.

On the value of Overtures to the GA from Presbyteries. (When a presbytery sends an overture to GA, they get to send an “overture advocate” to speak for a period of time—5 min. here, I believe—to clarify why the committee should consider their overture) This committee has just heard from 30-40 people bringing overtures, etc. many of which have urged the committee NOT to send this to the presbyteries for approval or disapproval this year. Some suggested sending it to the presbyteries to be studied for two years. A few recommended disapproving it altogether. All had done their homework and were very convincing. I can’t help but think the commissioners must be pretty heavily influenced by such a witness. The major points/concerns have been the following:
1. The current Book of Order doesn’t hamper churches from doing ministry, including doing missional ministry. (Giving us a more missional polity has been a major selling point.) A number of overture advocates and commissioners bore witness to churches that are successfully doing missional ministry under (or around?) the current Book of Order.

2. The new FOG lacks clarity/adds ambiguity—to intentionally add ambiguity assumes that we have a high level of trust or can develop one in short order. That assumption is inaccurate and would likely mean that changing to a FOG that is “more flexible” would probably result in chaos. One person shared that we need things more defined because people tend to manipulate things. Another indicated that flexibility isn’t always a good thing, as with a cane, a cast, or a skeleton—all of which need to be pretty rigid to fulfill their functions.

3. The claim of the FOG helping us become missional (outwardly focused) is self-defeating in that it will require pastors and elders hours of study to be prepared to vote on it at presbytery meetings. Then it will require hours of time for handbooks to be created to replace sections deleted. Then it will require hours of learning to use a new book. Then it will require discovering where its weaknesses are through subsequent trials, failures, etc. All of this takes energy away from serving the world Christ loves. Dave Wilkinson, Overture Advocate from the Presbytery of Santa Barbara, had some colorful phrases for us: “This FOG is not so much missional as it is omissional.” “If you teach a bear to dance, you have to dance as long as the bear wants to.” “Don’t pull the trigger until you know where you’re going to put the body.”

4. Concerns about the status of past Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) rulings and past Authoritative Interpretations (AI’s). Would they still have authority if the constitution changes? There were concerns expressed, including from a member of the GAPJC, that even subtle changes in wording could invalidate PJC rulings and AI’s.

5. The comment that our problem isn’t structural, but theological. Changing the structure doesn’t solve the theological problems.

At the end of Monday, the new FOG appears to have quite an uphill battle, though there are clearly commissioners that want to advocate for it or at least give it a full and fair hearing. And some of the task force members are clearly bright and extremely eloquent. They obviously didn’t spend hours working together to try to find the quickest way to ruin the church. Tomorrow will involve more opportunities to hear the positive aspects of the FOG. One final comment: the moderator and vice-moderator are doing a great job of teaching the committee how to do their work with patience, clear direction where needed, and humor to help keep the anxiety level down.