General Assembly reflections part 1

The 218th General Assembly (2008): Reflections part 1

Saturday June 21, 2008

The report of the Form of Government taskforce is certainly one of the most important issues before this year’s General Assembly. This is a sweeping, comprehensive revision of the Form of Government, which is, of course, the largest part of our Book of Order. (Our Book of Order also includes the Directory for Worship, and the Rules for Discipline.) Although the General Assembly’s first business meeting convenes today at 10:00, there was already, late Friday evening, an open presentation by the Form of Government taskforce concerning their proposal. Clearly, the taskforce has done an amazing amount of work in preparation for this decision this week. I have written about their proposal and discussed it in several different forums since their first draft was distributed last fall.

I am of two minds concerning the Form of Government taskforce proposal. I like it; I like the flexibility and streamlining of our polity which they have built into their proposal. I like the serious shift of authority and decision making back to the presbyteries, where historically it belongs. I like the focus on function rather than structure. On the other hand the approval of this proposal will require a much higher level and trust and cooperation across the church than currently exists. This kind of massive change in our administrative organization requires a very high level of trust. Does such trust exist in the church today? If not, this proposal may degenerate into deep conflict or move many people into deep apathy as they simply withdraw from this complicated conversation.

The distinction between function and structure may be the deepest change which this proposal brings. It is this distinction which may be the most important shift. The proposed Form of Government defines the function and responsibilities of the various “councils” of the church (sessions, presbyteries, synods and General Assembly). But the proposal does not define specifically how those functions should be expressed and implemented. For example, the proposed Form of Government does not explicitly state, as our current Form of Government does, that each presbytery must have a Committee on Ministry, a Committee on Preparation for Ministry and a Committee on Representation. In fact, many of the specific implementation steps and specific rules of the current Form of Government are dropped out in the new proposal. Instead broad responsibilities are outlined but specific steps for implementation are left to the decision of the individual councils.

Given some of the conversation we have started in the Presbytery of Carlisle, I want to emphasize that this proposed Form of Government is intended to be a “missional polity”. What does that mean? I want to quote here some background which was distributed by the Taskforce to help us understand their purpose and task. I quote here from “An Introduction” which is a short paper the Taskforce shared at their presentation Friday evening.

“The Form of Government proposed by the task force seeks to implement a missional polity. What is missional polity?
· To be missional begins in the confession that God has sent the church into the world to bear witness to God’s activity in reconciling and transforming the world. Therefore, mission is not something the church does; it is what the church is.
· Polity is the architecture of mission. A missional polity recognizes that the church councils – session, presbyteries, synods and General Assembly – guide and support the work of the congregation, and connect and coordinate that work with other congregations so that the whole church may witness more effectively to the activity of God in the world.
· A mission polity provides flexibility so that each congregation, as it engages the world in it particular corner of Christ’s kingdom, may do so effectively as possible, while still maintaining overarching constitutional standards that apply across the church.”