The Book of Order, 2009-2011 edition, is 1-1/4 inch thick and 9 inches tall and 6 inches wide in paperback. I have on my bookshelf The Confessional Statement and The Book of Government and Worship of the United Presbyterian Church of North America from 1926. It includes a brief statement of faith, all the rules and guidance for governance, worship and discipline, and even some rules of order. In hardback, it measures a mere half-inch thick and is 6 inches by 4 inches. While our Book of Order (after the first four chapters) makes for good bedside material when insomnia strikes, the Old UP book is actually a good read. Even with its brevity it communicates a vital faith and a sense of connection with the larger Body of Christ.
How did our Book of Order get so big? The simple answer is that we don't trust each other. At the reunion between the Northern and Southern Churches in 1983, we had a pared-down Book of Order, lean and mean and ready to go. In the past 27 years we've amended it over 300 times. Much of it was jockeying between the North and South over keeping the practices each favored. For instance, in the Northern stream the presbytery of care both examined and ordained candidates. In the South the presbytery of call did both. It took a few years of doing the Hokey Pokey with competing overtures before the compromise of the presbytery of call examining and the presbytery of care ordaining finally settled the matter. When disagreements arise it seems that our first instinct to amend our Constitution.
Do we trust each other? No, it's obvious that we don't, and that's why some say that we dare not adopt nFOG. How else can we keep those with whom we disagree in check? I have to acknowledge that risk, as there are unintended consequences with everything. That does make me a little nervous. But I believe that we can't go on the way we've been going in recent years, and I'm willing to take a chance on nFOG. Every congregation, every presbytery, every synod is unique, with its own missional call. Our current Book of Order has become a one-size-fits-all straightjacket which prevents us from determining what works best in our own context. We do need guidance, and yes, we do need a few shalls. But we also need to figure out how to carry out our ministries in mutual accountability. The proposed New Form of Government is not perfect, but with the revisions made in the last two years, and with the further changes made by General Assembly, I think it will serve us well.
What are your thoughts? Please post your responses, and let's interact with one another.
In Christ,
Marty
I agree that the nFOG is not perfect, but I think it is an improvement over the current BOO. At 58 pages, it is still a significant tome.
ReplyDeleteI particularly like F-3. I think it renders down basic concepts and values of the denomination as such in a way that is a lot easier to read and absorb. I also like to know what it is we are aiming for, to have it spelled out up front.
As for trust - it does seem to be diminishing, not just in the PC(USA) but throughout our society at the moment. I don't think more rules make for more trust, though. The Mitzpah Blessing is a great example - Jacob and Laban could have cut a large, detailed covenant, and then invested resources in making sure the other one was holding up his end of the bargain, and biennially met to re-hash their lengthening agreement, trying to out-maneuver each other for advantage.
Instead, they choose something a bit more like Oliver Wendel Holmes - 'The right to swing my first ends where the other man's nose begins.'
I think that if we learn to mutually forebear more, we will become more connectional, not less. We will be more likely to be relaxed enough to connect on what matters.
I think more of nomadic pastoralists, rather than city-dwellers, where every square foot had to be claimed and managed. Jacob and Laban could do as they did because they had space to be apart and live their own lives. For us, we have to give each other that space.
That's my hope for things like nFOG, anyway.
Thanks for your thoughts, Doug. John Locke spoke of the social contract by which people bind themselves together. Our contract with each other is that we will all honor and obey our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, follow the commands of Holy Scripture and submit to one another, accepting (or at least living with) the decisions of the majority. In the days of the American Revolution, the social contract with England unraveled. I see the same thing happening to us in the PC(USA). Some have already dissolved their bonds with the PC(USA), and others are talking about it. Most of us are blaming those with opposite views and refusing to see that unity is a two-way street. We need to discuss the concept of forbearance, both its implications and its limits.
ReplyDeleteI also see the perennial problem of how people interpret honoring and obeying Christ and following the commands of Holy Scripture. In the past when the Presbyterian Church has been divided (time and again), both sides claimed (felt) they were doing those things. Even now, people use those values to justify going to war, becoming pacifists, voting Republican or Democrat, expanding ordination to include LGTBQ persons, resisting that change in ordination standards, recycling, tithing, withholding per capita, etc. - and for those who break away to join the OPC and EPC, ordaining women or not ordaining women, etc.
ReplyDeleteOn paper, or as expressed above, I think that everyone involved is probably trying very hard to honor our social contract. There is just real disagreement on what those things mean. It seems like this disagreement arises periodically in history over divisive issues, peaks, and then fades away for a while. The only real historical difference is that, as protestants, upping and leaving for another denomination is on the table as an option.
So you're right - how much disagreement can we forbear, and how much is too much?
I think that connectionalism becomes a scape-goat, sometimes, for an inability to forbear. The argument is made that 'we are a connectional church, and therefore we cannot allow X or Y to happen, because it will affect all of us'. This has the effect of impinging on freedom of conscience (in terms of polity, leaving aside conscience as subject to interpretation of Scripture and so on) and, I think, is in contrast to forbearance.
What do you think? Where does your forbearance run out?