Commentary:
An open can of worms
By Carmen Fowler, The Layman, November 23, 2010
One of the reasons articulated for voting against Amendment 10-1, the proposed new Form of Government (nFOG), is the effect it will have on the transferability of clergy. It already takes 18 months on average to fill an empty pulpit in the PCUSA. Imagine a reality where clergy face 173 different sets of criteria for presbytery membership as each presbytery writes its own manual of operations. Further, imagine a reality wherein every presbytery has to examine not only a candidate transferring from another presbytery but the standards that were applied in that presbytery in relationship to ordination standards.
There is no question that the nFOG gives each presbytery complete power in determining not only its membership but also the process for calling pastors. If the nFOG passes in a majority of presbyteries, our system will become increasingly Episcopal as it relates to clergy mobility. References from executive presbyters, like those of Methodist or Episcopal bishops, will have an even greater influence on whether or not a pastor can move between calls.
To see a full analysis of the nFOG, visit the Presbyterians For Renewal “Campaign 2010-2011” Web site. To follow the voting The Layman Online’s vote chart.
What might that look like? You might call it a can of worms.
Consider the current reality of a pastor whose ministry is national in scope and whose continuing membership as a member-at-large is in the presbytery where they last served in an installed pastoral position. The paragraph at issue is the interpretation of G-11.0400. There are nearly as many interpretations of that paragraph as there are presbyteries and those interpretations are solidified in presbytery manuals of operations.
Some presbyteries have the active expectation that ministers who cross into their presbytery to perform a wedding or funeral should first seek the Committee on Ministry’s (COM) “permission to labor inside the bounds.” Other presbyteries regard preaching by the invitation of a session, speaking at a retreat, performing a wedding or funeral, and many other activities as falling into the category of “the regular practice of ministry” and therefore not requiring prior authorization nor notification of the presbytery. There are also a variety of practices that fall in between.
One presbytery COM believes that it cannot allow one of its minister members to labor outside its bounds until and unless that minister receives permission to labor inside the bounds of the other presbytery. Simultaneously, the other presbytery will not grant permission to labor inside its bounds until and unless the other presbytery grants its minister permission to labor outside its bounds. That can of worms only gets worse under nFOG as every presbytery crafts its own call process.
nFOG also grants presbyteries sweeping powers in relationship to pastoral terminations. Under the current G-9.0505(b) 1 and 2, the rights of pastors are protected in the termination process. Under nFOG G-3.0109 those protections disappear.
Further, the nFOG grants presbyteries the authority to authorize commissions to dissolve pastoral relationships against the will of both the congregation and pastor.
Other problems with the proposed nFOG:
- nFOG places church members under the authority not only of the session but “higher councils” (nFOG G-1.0103). Under the current FOG (G-7.0103), members voluntarily place themselves under the leadership of “their officers, whom they elect.” Members become “less” members of a local congregation and “more” members of the PCUSA.
- nFOG offers no guarantees that any of the precedents set by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC), nor existing Authoritative Interpretations (AI) by the GA will remain in effect. The GA committee charged with evaluating the effect of the nFOG on existing AIs and GAPJC decisions is not due to report until 2012. Only then will we know what GAPJC decisions and AIs continue to have force and effect.
- Larger congregations are no longer afforded greater representation at presbytery meetings under nFOG (see G-11.0101 vs. nFOG 3.0301).
When your presbytery votes on the new Form of Government, Amendment 10-1, you might consider asking why it is necessary, how this particular form of government is better than the current form of government, and how does the current form of government prevent a congregation from being “missional?”
A shared polity is built upon a shared theology, which is the final shortcoming of the nFOG addressed herein. In the very first sentence of the Foundations section, the nFOG makes the universalistic claim that “God … redeems … all people” (F-1.01). Some will be glad to see that the T.U.L.I.P. petals of unconditional election and limited atonement have been plucked away, but with what are they being replaced? Presbyters will need to not only examine what is included in the nFOG but recognize what is not there. Each one will want to evaluate what is being gained and what is being lost. It would seem that we are considering replacing one can of worms with a larger one.