Draft document on abbreviated Book of Order seeks to ‘provide more flexibility in favor of presbyteries’
By Craig M. Kibler, The Layman Online, September 29, 2005
A plan backed by Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick to abbreviate the Book of Order contains proposals that he says will create “a polity that is ‘permission giving’ as opposed to regulatory” and will “provide more flexibility in favor of presbyteries.” This plan would, if approved according to a draft document of the plan, legislate local option throughout the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Some of the proposals, which were prepared by the Office of the General Assembly which Kirkpatrick heads, include such language as “would permit the whole church to seek unity without requiring uniformity” and “the presbytery [would have] enormous discretion in almost all areas [of] the central governmental unit.”
The draft document was prepared in response to an instruction by the 216th General Assembly that recommendations amending the Form of Government and the Directory of Worship be brought to the 217th General Assembly, which will meet in Birmingham on June 15-22, 2006.
The Office of the General Assembly’s draft document and a report recently released by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity reinforce one another in recommending that local governing bodies determine the essentials of faith and polity.
Kirkpatrick has called for a Book of Order that would place a priority on the first four chapters, a collection of principles that do not include regulatory or disciplinary requirements. He has suggested – without explaining how – that those chapters be elevated in importance over the rest of the Book of Order.
“In my experience, these four chapters have a broad resonance in all quarters of the church and are a wonderful statement of the vision of church life that is the unique gift of the Presbyterian Church to the Church ecumenical,” he said.
The introduction to the draft document states that the Office of the General Assembly has held more than 30 focus groups comprised of executive presbyters, stated clerks, associate executives, pastors, elders, staff members and members of presbytery committees. “We found an almost universal desire for a change in our Form of Government,” it says. “There was almost universal desire that the revision provide more flexibility in favor of presbyteries.”
The draft document contains three options for consideration:
1. Send the original overture back down to the presbyteries “with no substantive changes in Chapter XIV.” Some of the proposals in this option include: Adding a section to the preface that says advisory handbooks would be published “to guide synods and presbyteries in procedures related to the oversight of ministry;” That such “handbooks suggest procedures that are commended, but not required;” That the handbooks provide “suggested models for procedure that synods and presbyteries may adopt for their own use or modify to fit local circumstances” in developing a manual of administrative operations; and that the handbooks “shall provide guidance in the ordination, certification, commissioning, and oversight of the work of ministry through suggested models for procedures that synods and presbyteries may adopt for their own use or modify to establish their own requirements to fit local circumstances.”
In its rationale for this option, the draft document states that the revisions sought to make the procedures for ordination, certification, and commissioning more flexible” by “eliminating detail that focused on guidance to entities of governing bodies … for their functions of oversight and guidance of persons” and that the handbooks will include “model procedures for governing bodies to use or adapt in developing requirements to fit local circumstances. The handbooks will provide language that is suggested, but not mandatory.”
2. Sending to the presbyteries the “1999 Form of Government revision again. …The Form of Government was divided into three levels: Foundational Material – containing concepts and principles developed throughout the life of the PC(USA), and could be modified only by a 2/3s vote of a General Assembly and the presbyteries; Binding Policies – which are those policies that apply to the foundational materials from which they are derived, but to which they are subordinate, but like foundational material are binding on all Presbyterians. They would be amendable by a majority vote of the General Assembly and the presbyteries like the current Book of Order is; Advisory Practices – would permit the whole church to seek unity without requiring uniformity. They would be amendable by a majority vote of the General Assembly.”
3. Considering an “entirely different type of Form of Government. … that is written ‘in English,’ one that will fit in your pocket, and one that will cover the essential pieces of our governance. They long for a polity that is ‘permission giving’ as opposed to regulatory. … It envisions a much shorter, more general Form of Government with the presbytery having enormous discretion in almost all areas [of] the central governmental unit. … We envision that a new Form of Government, based on this theory and model would have an outline that looked something like:
An opening chapter describing theology of the PCUSA (likely one page)
A chapter focusing on our mission (likely three pages)
A chapter on governance (likely one page)
A chapter on ordination (likely three pages)
A chapter on the session (likely four-to-five pages)
A chapter on the presbytery (seven pages or less)
A chapter on the synod (1 page)
A chapter on the General Assembly (two pages)
A chapter on ecumenical relations (2 pages)
A chapter on amending the Constitution (2 pages)”
The draft document ends by the Office of the General Assembly asking for input, and offering two potential avenues:
- “We could send either Options 1 or 2 to the 217th General Assembly (2006) as proposals. We would continue to refine them and would welcome your suggestions and critique in doing that. We would expect to formally submit that option to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution and seek their review for the submission to the 217th General Assembly (2006).
- “If Option Three were the overwhelming majority, it would be our intention to seek the permission of the 217th General Assembly (2006) to create a task force to aid in drafting and perfecting a full proposal for submission to the 218th General Assembly (2008). We would expect to involve executives, clerks, former Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) and Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) members, seminary professors, racial ethnic and new immigrant persons, pastors of large and small churches, and clerks of session. Once a draft was ready, we would expect to distribute it widely for comment and critique.”
Background on proposals
Kirkpatrick has pushed for changes in the Book of Order since 2002. During a presentation that year on “The Role of the Constitution in the Life of the Church” at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Ga., for example, Kirkpatrick, in reference to constitutional fights and numerous national referendums on proposed amendments, said, “We are heading toward a ‘train wreck’ if we can’t find a way to a new track as we seek to uphold the constitution of the church.”
For his abridged version of the Book of Order, Kirkpatrick suggested that a number of current rules be taken out of the constitution. But the church “may” include some key polity issues such as “things like the meaning of membership, our understanding of the offices of ministry, the call to holy living for church officers, the presbytery as the governing body of original jurisdiction, the ordination questions and the like.”
Convictions and rules
He has called the current Book of Order “an odd mixture of cherished and deeply held Reformed convictions that gives far too many specific rules for matters that can and should best be decided by a session or presbytery.”
To illustrate his train-wreck metaphor, Kirkpatrick told a story about a train trip he took to Mexico City – only to have his interpretation of the story later challenged by the Rev. Jerry Andrews of Glen Ellyn, Ill., the only person who spoke against Kirkpatrick’s call for an abbreviated constitution.
The train was headed toward Mexico City when the engineer discovered that another train was approaching on the same track. Both trains stopped, and their engineers got out and met between the two trains to argue about which one had the right-of-way. That didn’t settle the matter, so they retrieved their operation manuals to continue the argument. Nothing was settled then, either, and the engineers resorted to a fist fight. Finally, railroad officers arrived and settled the issue – ordering one train to back up while the other proceeded toward its destination.
Kirkpatrick’s interpretation of the story was that the operation manuals failed to resolve the stalemate – just as, he contended, the Book of Order has failed to bring peace and unity to the denomination.
“We have a Book of Order almost as long as the manual those two engineers were using against one another and with every bit as many rules and regulations. We have transformed our Book of Order, which through most of our history was a very slim document of essential principles … into a detailed manual made for a regulatory agency model of church life.”
Leaders ended the stalemate
But Andrews, one of six panelists at the conference, later said, “I love the end of the story. It is the railroad officer who comes out of the office and offers a resolution.” He looked at Kirkpatrick when he made that statement, challenging the clerk by his gesture to exercise the duty of his office to “preserve and defend the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
Kirkpatrick and several of the panelists harkened back to the days when the Book of Order would fit in a shirt pocket, but Andrews said Presbyterians did not need a detailed Book of Order in times past because they shared theological consensus.
“There was a time when our consensus of faith was wrapped around the Westminster standards. Our trust permitted a broadness of behavior based on that coherence in doctrine,” he said.
The size of today’s “Book of Order is a function of trust,” Andrews said. “Regulation is a function of trustworthiness. Both are to be called for. Was there not a time when our consensus of faith was greater, the coherence of the body was tighter, the trust in our membership was deeper, so the rules of our common life were fewer?”