| Did You Hear What’s in the nFOG? |
| Written by John Bethard | ||||||||||||||||||
| Tuesday, 25 January 2011 18:47 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have become increasingly alarmed at the tactics used by those who oppose the proposed new form of government for the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Last week I received an email from the Presbyterian Coalition, a group of Presbyterians from various conservative affinity groups. The email cited a paper from the GAPJC, saying that they opposed the proposed nFOG for a variety of reasons. Its too bad this same paper came up at the General Assembly in Minneapolis, and its so-called concerns were refuted then. Why in the world would a new form of government require re-litigation of issues when we regularly cite cases from our antecedent denominations (as in the Bush case, a case oft-cited by conservatives)? The paper also cites a long list of reasons why the proposed nFOG is bad for the denomination. I was a commissioner to the 219th GA, but I was not present when this document was presented to the committee taking up nFOG. I do know that they soundly answered the points to the satisfaction of most of those present. Otherwise, we would not be debating the revision in our presbyteries. What is most alarming to me is that this seems like a mudslinging tactic devoid of integrity. Continuing to return to a defeated argument runs the risk of marginalizing the conservatives in the denomination. I am conservative, but I am hesitant to cast my lot with the group because of tactics like this. Repeating arguments that have already been heard and defeated is deceitful, and smacks of modern American politics, where something is perceived as true if one hears it enough. When we conservatives speak of reclaiming biblical truth but use secular tactics in our dialogue, then we have done nothing more than make truth relative – one of the very things we stand against. Any group that behaves in such a manner usually finds itself on the outside of the debate looking in. Why would we want to show ourselves to the door, when we’ve been invited to the table? I suspect two reasons for this behavior. For decades, the conservative arm of the church has been extremely distrustful of Louisville. Sometimes this is justified, other times it is not. It’s an age old script that sounds like, “Nazareth? What good can come out of Nazareth?” And while I applaud a discerning mind and spirit, simply going against something because certain other people and groups endorse it is mindless at worst, and unhelpful at best. I think the major reason the conservatives do not like nFOG is fear. Are we so afraid of what the future might bring that we are willing to sacrifice our integrity to keep the status quo? I certainly hope not. Some have called the PC(USA) dysfunctional, and if that charge sticks, then the conservatives are behaving like the abused spouse who would rather stay with the abuser than risk an uncertain (and hopefully better) future alone. Sisters and brothers please read the proposed revision for yourselves! Do not take someone else’s word or trust someone else’s interpretation of this important moment for the Church. Too many in leadership (on all parts of the spectrum) have an axe to grind for so many of us to simply trust “guidance” from affinity groups. To put it in academic vernacular, it’s a good thing to read the source material. We will never move forward on these issues if we do not put aside our rhetoric and our worn-out maneuverings and meet our sisters and brothers at the table. I am not speaking of giving up what we believe in. But none of that will matter if we try to win at all costs and lose ourselves along the way. We are better than that. John Bethard is pastor of the Charlestown Church in Charlestown, W.Va. Your Responses (9)
John Bethard
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Charles Town, WV When I wrote and submitted my article last week, I never intended it to create the firestorm that has resulted. I will admit that some of my characterizations were a little on the harsh side. I am not surprised, therefore, that much of the reaction has centered on how I made my point, and not as much on my main point. When I first wrote, I was angered by what I perceived to be “business as usual” politicking. Much of the for and against information being produced feels exactly like how we debate ordination standards, and the proposed nFOG is much, much bigger than that issue alone (and I am willing to bet someone gets rankled by that last statement, too). So I will state plainly again what I thought I made clear last week: Elders and Ministers voting on the proposed nFOG have a duty to the Church to read the work for themselves. This is an important moment in the life and history of the PC(USA), and we must treat it as such. We can do this decently, and in order. |
Casey Jones
said:
|
... Jim Tony and Bob Davis are right in their letter to Presbyterina Outlook.http://www.pres-outlook.com/opinion/43-letters-to-the-editor/10938-re-did-you-hear-whats-in-the-nfog.html I am told by my colleague, Rev. Doug Harper, who was on the committee that wrote the Plan of Reunion in 1983, that, unlike newFOG, it explicitly contained provisions affirming that AI's and other actions of each predecessor denomination's GA were still authoritative and in effect. NewFOG contains no such provision. So Jim and Bob are right that the GAPJC concern about new FOG before the last GA cannot have been answered by the mere appointment of Special Committee which has as yet offered no recommendation about which AI's would be preserved—doubly so since even if the Committee had already made recommendations, they would still be subject to amendment, approval, or disapproval by the next GA. Finally, in its analysis reported at http://www.reclaimbiblicalteaching.org/nFOG/GAPJC Information Sheet on GA2191.pdf, the GAPJC itself pointed out the important differences in form and function between a GA and the GAPJC. Currently each can interpret the Constitution authoritatively but cannot really over-rule the other. But if new FOG passes, the next General Assembly could conceivably over-rule (by elimination) any GAPJC decision it wished while only preserving its own AI on the subject, thereby upsetting a well-conceived balance of powers between GA and GAPJC. Winfield Jones |
Jim Tony & Bob Davis
said:
|
Richmond, VA Standing Behind our Recent Email regarding the Proposed nFOG and the GAPJC January 28, 2011 Dear Jack, Charges of mudslinging tactics devoid of integrity have been leveled against the Campaign to Reclaim Biblical Teaching. Specifically the concern is the impact of the revised FOG on existing Authoritative Interpretations [AI]. We thought it wise to inform you directly of our response. John Bethard's letter posted on The Presbyterian Outlook on Tuesday was tough to read for a couple of reasons. First, it was a slam. Second, and more importantly, it's factually incorrect. The substance of his complaint was our reference to problems with the revised FOG raised by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission [GAPJC] prior to the 219th General Assembly (2010). He contended that the GAPJC's concerns were "refuted" by the General Assembly; thus, our continuing to make reference to it was essentially bad faith. The problem? The GAPJC's concerns were not "refuted." Instead, the GAPJC's concerns were AFFIRMED. The 219th GA formed a Special Committee to address the question of the precedent value of existing AIs, to make its report to the next Assembly, which will vote to approve, amend or reject the Special Committee's recommendations. If the revised FOG is adopted, the committee will report its recommendations to the ACC in August, 2011, -- but those are only recommendations -- and then those recommendations will go to the next GA (June, 2012). Again, if the revised FOG passes, the reality is the that meaning of provisions like G-6.0106b may have changed, regardless of whether the language of G-6.0106b remains substantially the same. The point is that no one can say with certainty these matters have been settled or "refuted" until after the next GA. Yet presbyteries are being asked to approve a document (revised FOG) before having the benefit of knowing what precedents will survive and what its language will mean. Further, approving the new Form of Government is an invitation to challenge existing precedents to see if they are still valid. Don't take our word for it, read the Presbyterian News Service article written by Sharon Youngs, of the Office of the General Assembly (OGA): "The six members of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order held their first meeting on January 17-18 . . . If the revised Form of Government (FOG) is approved, the status of existing AIs would vary depending on the differences in language between the revised FOG and the current version." One of the arguments heard in response is, "Well, it is common sense that we will hold onto the AIs that have been made, much like we have held onto decisions made prior to reunion in 1983." We can't find any such provision in the revised FOG. Trusting common sense is naive. If there were such a thing as common sense in the Presbyterian Church, we would not need the GAPJC. We would all agree on what are the appropriate outcomes. That is not our history. Every case that comes to the GAPJC arrives because there was a disagreement that Presbyterians were willing to spend the time, money, and energy to litigate. How much money, time, and energy are Presbyterians willing to exert to re-litigate previously decided questions? In Christ, Jim Tony & Bob Davis Members, Campaign Coordinating Team |
Timothy R. Woodruff
said:
|
Wilmington, DE To Jack Haberer; Time for some fact checking, please. The tradition of the Outlooks objectivity calls for it. This needs to be done especially in light of the Presbyterian News Service story, www.pcusa.org/news/2011/1/21/s...nterpret/. When a charge of mudslinging devoid of integrity is made, a reality check is in order. The PNS news story suggests that while feelings may be running very high, there are issues here that call for a more reasoned response than some of those above. Tim Woodruff |
Bob_Davis
said:
|
... Dear Editor: John Bethard's letter posted on Tuesday was tough to read for a couple of reasons. First, it was a slam. I felt it personally because it was aimed at the Reclaim Biblical Teaching campaign of which I am a part. The criticism he leveled was pretty rough: "mudslinging tactic devoid of integrity." That means John Bethard believes we have acted in a manner "devoid of integrity." Wow. Look, I am used to people disagreeing with me. I expect that. I am used to people wondering if I have thought through something completely. I accept their criticism. There are times in which conservatives/evangelicals -- including me -- have used heightened rhetoric, overlooked prejudices when votes were involved, overstated our Scriptural adherence, forgotten compassion, worshipped victories, and fought poorly. I am working on trying to not do those things. However, I am not used to a brother in Christ going public with a judgment against me that my behavior is "devoid of integrity." Second, it was tough to read because it was factually incorrect. The substance of his complaint was our reference to concerns about the nFoG raised by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission prior to the 219th General Assembly (2010). Bethard wrote that the GA PJC's concerns were "refuted" by the General Assembly; and, thus, our continuing to make reference to it was essentially bad faith. His premise is inaccurate: The GA PJC's concerns were not "refuted." The GA PJC's concerns were AFFIRMED; and the remedy provided highlights the criticism that has been leveled: no one will know what precedents will stand if the nFoG is approved -- until AFTER the voting takes place. No one will know until the 2020th General Assembly (2012) votes. The 219th General Assembly authorized a special committee to address the question of the precedent value of existing Authoritative Interpretations, make its report to the next assembly, which will then vote to approve, amend, or reject the special committee's recommendations. Thus, we are voting without knowing. Approving the new Form of Government is an invitation to challenge existing precedents to see if they are still valid. Don't take my word for it, read the Presbyterian News Service written by Sharon Youngs, Communications Coordinator of the Office of the General Assembly (OGA): The six members of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order held their first meeting on January 17-18... If the revised Form of Government (FOG) is approved, the status of existing AIs would vary depending on the differences in language between the revised FOG and the current version." One of the arguments I have heard in response is, "Well, it is common sense that we will hold onto the AI's that have been made, much like we have held onto decisions made prior to reunion in 1983." Trusting common sense is naive. If there were such a thing as common sense in the Presbyterian Church, we would not need the GA PJC. We would all agree on what are the appropriate outcomes. That is not our history. Every case that comes to the GA PJC arrives because there was a disagreement that Presbyterians were willing to spend the time, money, and energy to litigate. How much money, time, and energy are Presbyterians willing to exert to re-litigate previously decided questions? How does re-litigating those questions with nFoG language help us become more missional? Agree or disagree with than analysis, does that change the perception of whether we are acting in a manner "devoid of integrity"? Your brother in Christ, Bob Davis |
Dan Williams
said:
|
... About the concerns raised by the GAPJC "white paper" -- these were refuted before the GA Committee by the task force as well as by the ACC, the part of the GA tasked with offering analysis on pending constitutional change. Here are the concerns raised by the GAPJC: 1. Loss of interpretive history. The GAPJC paper states, “Authoritative Interpretations (AIs) are interpretations of specific wording. If one or more words are changed in the text, it may no longer be said that a prior AI authoritatively interprets the new wording – such an interpretation would require either a new General Assembly action or a new GAPJC decision.” It is surprising that the GAPJC would make this contention, as it represents neither the reality following previous revisions to the Book of Order nor their own practice in deciding cases before it. Perhaps the most well-known authoritative interpretation was the 1978 UPCUSA/1979 PCUS definitive guidance on ordination standards. Despite the fact that the specific language on which these interpretations were based did not appear in our reunion Book of Order, these interpretations remained in force until replaced twenty-five years later by the 218th General Assembly (2008) with an AI that deleted the force and effect of the earlier AIs. They were not automatically ‘lost’ in the adoption of the 1983 reunion Book of Order. In addition, the GAPJC regularly cites actions and precedents from our antecedent denominations reaching back through several revisions of the Book of Order. As John Bethard notes, the Bush decision (218-10) cites the 1925 Swearingen Commission Report to the PCUSA GA, which itself is an interpretation of the 1729 Adopting Act. Clearly the GAPJC does not believe our interpretive history is lost upon the adoption of a new, or in this case, several new Forms of Government. The spin the Presbyterian Coalition has been putting on this issue – that “we will not know if any current authoritative interpretation survives under the nFOG until the G.A. of 2012, a year after the voting is finished” – is completely backwards. (This error is on display in the response from Jim Tony, above.) Only the GA, in session or through its PJC, can issue, amend, or remove an AI. We will not know if any current authoritative interpretation will be **removed** until the 220th GA acts upon the report of the special committee currently doing the legwork on this issue, following the guidance the 219th GA provided by the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) in Item 07-12. Absent this action of a GA, all current AIs remain in force. 2. Lack of due process rights. The GAPJC concern here was raised in connection with current G-9.0505b(1) and (2), which pertain to the work of an administrative commission appointed to inquire into and settle differences within a church. The requirement of due process in G-9.0505b(1) is preserved in the final paragraph of proposed G-3.0109, and the requirements of G-9.0505b(2) regarding a meeting of the congregation prior to the dissolution of a pastoral relationship are preserved in proposed G-2.0901 and G-2.0904. The Assembly Committee altered the wording of proposed G-2.0901 to guarantee the existence of a congregational meeting, phraseology that was less clear in the wording of the proposal as written by the task force. As for existing AIs related to this issue, once again, all AIs remain in force until a GA acts to specifically change or remove them. The ACC report, referenced above, notes that where the language of the new Form of Government is identical to or essentially the same as existing language, the AIs will ‘migrate’ to the new location. Many current AIs fall under this guideline. If the new language is substantively different, the GA will need to clarify the continuing status of the AI. It is not a given that such clarification will be the removal of an AI. 3. Impact of shifting constitutional language and requirements to “Manuals of Operations.” The Coalition likes to amplify this issue as follows: “New constitutionally-required manuals in each governing body will necessitate court rulings not only on the constitution but also on the manuals. Manual requirements will vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and create an interpretive mess. Standards that now apply to the whole church will apply only to a particular jurisdiction.” (Presbyterian Coalition, January 18 email) There are several errors woven throughout this contention. The first is a fundamental misrepresentation: the proposed FOG is not about shifting into manuals the “what” of our polity (principles, requirements, or standards) as it is about granting flexibility for the “how” and “who” for implementing these standards (structures, processes, and procedures; ‘constitutional’ language that should not be in the constitution in the first place). It is the latter that have been removed from the current FOG, and will in some form need to be eventually added to already-required and existing (not ‘new’) manuals of operation. The former items, our polity principles and standards, remain standards for the whole church. The variation within manuals will be how these standards and responsibilities are carried out, variations which in certain areas already exist within manuals. Are we currently seeing a flood of remedial cases on these matters? This contention that moving these structural and procedural matters into manuals of operation will overburden the GA and other PJCs assumes that the only cure for a potential issue would be to initiate a remedial case. However, the provisions in both the current and proposed Forms of Government for general administrative review would be a quicker, more appropriate, and more thorough avenue for resolving such issues than a remedial case that would be limited to a few – or even one – narrow specifications of error. Should such a case reach a PJC, the issue would be whether the council has been delinquent in failing to act, or irregular in how it did act. Questions involved would include whether the manual defined a process for carrying out standards/responsibilities assigned by the constitution, whether the process was followed, or whether the process violates a constitutional principle. It is a distortion, however, to suggest that manuals will have differing ‘standards’ that only apply to a particular council. Without belaboring the point, one example is the presbytery responsibility to validate ministries. This will be done according to the standards spelled out G-2.0503, which are essentially the same as the current standards (G-11.0403). The process by which this determination will be made and the entity that will do it might vary, and will be expressed in the presbytery’s manual. I can only echo John Bethard’s major point: do not believe everything you read about the proposed Form of Government. There are some who either have not read the proposal themselves and/or do not understand it, or for other reasons are deliberately distorting what is in it, or what its effect will be. Read the proposal for yourself. It is nice to know that Jim Tony now stands against “name-calling and the impugning of the integrity and motives” of others. Would that he had arrived at this position prior to the presentation about nFOG he helped coordinate at the 219th General Assembly, including a video that was a far more egregious example of such behavior than that which he claims exists in John Bethard’s letter. Dan Williams, Pastor Second Presbyterian Church, Staunton, Virginia Co-Moderator, Form of Government Task Force (2008-2010) |
Jeffrey Winter
said:
|
Martha's Vineyard, MA Thanks Rev. Bethard for making some very valid points in your Outlook article. It is easy to read and apply what others say about nFOG. We need to read the proposed revision for ourselves and not rely on others to interpret this document. I trust that other conservative pastors and laypersons in the PCUSA take to heart Rev. Bethard's admontion. |
James R. Tony
said:
|
... Dear Editor, The article posted in the online Outlook titled “Did You Hear What’s in the NFOG?” is extremely disappointing. Consider the name-calling and the impugning of the integrity and motives it contains. For example "mudslinging tactic devoid of integrity," "deceitful," "distrustful," "fear" and "abused spouse." There is nothing cited to justify the attack. The “evidence” cited is simply inaccurate. Specifically, the author of this article says that the email (http://www.reclaimbiblicalteaching.org/GAPJC_on_nFOG_0118.pdf) from the Campaign to Reclaim Biblical Teaching, [of which I am a part] cited a paper from the GAPJC (http://www.reclaimbiblicalteaching.org/nFOG/GAPJC Information Sheet on GA2191.pdf), saying that “they opposed the proposed nFOG for a variety of reasons. Its [sic] too bad this same paper came up at the General Assembly in Minneapolis, and its so-called concerns were refuted then.” The concerns of the GA PJC were not refuted. Not only were the concerns not refuted, the General Assembly appointed a Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations. As reported in the Presbyterian News Service this week (http://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/1/21/special-committee-existing-authoritative-interpret/), "The ACC [Advisory Committee on the Constitution] and GAPJC have determined that if the revised Form of Government (FOG) is approved, the status of existing AIs [Authoritative Interpretations] would vary depending on the differences in language between the revised FOG and the current version." (emphasis added). The ACC has an opinion about what might stay and what might go. The GA JPC may also privately have an opinion about what may stay and what may go. The committee will report its recommendations to the ACC in August -- but those are only recommendations -- and then those recommendations will go to the next GA (2012). Thus, the church will not know what AIs and precedents remain until after the next GA acts. And the context of provisions like G-6.0106b will have changed if the revised FOG is adopted, regardless of whether the language of G-6.0106b remains substantially the same. The point is that no one can say with certainty these matters have been settled or “refuted.” The church will not be able to say with any certainty what is refuted or what will remain until after the next GA at the earliest. Yet we are being asked to approve a document (revised FOG) that will at the least dramatically change how the PCUSA is structured and what constitutes its governance before we have the benefit of knowing what precedents will survive and what its language will mean. James R. Tony Pastor, Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church |
Robert Campbell
said:
|
Sharon Hill, PA Before the 2010 GA I served on a task force that examined the nFoG and made recommendations to the expanded nFoG committee. In some crucial areas we may have been heard but our concerns did not bring about change. The specific areas of most concern had to do with the paragraphs that would allow interim pastors and associate pastors to become the next installed pastor of a congregation with a 3/4 vote of a presbytery. The job of an interim pastor is transition. The interim cannot do her/his job right if there is a possibility of continuing as the next installed pastor. Having an associate pastor become the next installed pastor probably will not allow a congregation to do the careful self searching it must do to consider its future ministry. I oppose both of these sections of the nFoG. Yet I realize that both can be changed by amendment. As I read through the nFoG I am trying to figure out if there is a tipping point, a place where I must say too much must be changed there must be too many amendments and therefore the nFoG must be rejected. That I think is the proper way to consider the nFoG. I hope all those who vote at presbytery meetings about the nFoG will do the same hard work. Either acceptance or rejection of the nFoG without careful study means that we have not done the work necessary to making this important decision. |
Write a Response
