Kruse Kronicle

Given the choice

—

by

mwkruse
in

Presbyterian News Service: Given the choice

LOUISVILLE — A task force charged with revising the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Form of Government (FOG) has backed away from its proposed rewrite of the PC(USA) Constitution’s theological underpinnings (chapters 1-4 of The Book of Order).

The task force was authorized by last summer’s 217th General Assembly to revise the FOG to make it more flexible for presbyteries and congregations. Some members of the task force had drafted a new section to replace the first four chapters.

But instead of recommending this new section entitled “The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity,” the nine-member Form of Government Task Force tentatively decided at its April 12-14 meeting here to submit both “Foundations” and the existing first four Book of Order chapters to the 2008 assembly and let commissioners decide which they prefer. ….

…….

Borrowing from renowned Presbyterian missiologist Darrell Guder, the task force posits five characteristics of missional polity:

Biblical — “there should be explicit biblical foundations for what we believe about the church”;

Historical — polity must acknowledge that “we come to the church as the latest in along tradition of Christians who have struggled with what it means to be faithful and from whose struggles we can learn”;

Contextual — “the Church is not an abstraction but exists in particular…settings” so polity “must provide the flexibility to enable the church to adapt…”;

Eschatological — “polity must have at its core the conviction that the Church is moving toward God’s promised new creation and should bear witness to that new reality in all that it does”;

Practicable — “what the polity envisions can be put into regular and effective practice by the Church.”

Comments

9 responses to “Given the choice”

  1. Todd Bensel Avatar
    Todd Bensel

    Do I detect a “finger in the wind” trying to gauge direction here? This is a most astounding development! And I further hope that the rewrite of the remainder will become a ten year task – at least!

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I think there is a perception that changing the first four chapters will make the idea DOA. That may be true. I think there is a struggle between the purists (trying to write what they think is the perfect document) and the pragmatists on this one.

    Reply
  3. Quotidian Grace Avatar
    Quotidian Grace

    Much as I think the BOO needs a complete re-write, I also am enough of a pragmatist to think that this is not the time in the life of the denomination to do it. A lot of trust needs to be rebuilt. Lack of trust is why the BOO is starting to rival the federal tax code in length.

    Reply
  4. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    It sounds like the main reason we always have so many propositions on our ballot out here in California: the legislature foists controversial bills off onto the electorate.
    But really, I think the excerpts you quoted reflect some good thought. I’m not sure how much flexing can be done given “explicit biblical foundations”. I hope that is not Presbyspeak for prooftexting; whether it is or not, I don’t think there is as much wiggle room as some in the denom seem to think.
    Dana

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I’m with you, QG. If lived in a vacuum I would rewrite the BOO in heartbeat. But we do live in a particular context and I think changing the intial chapters is a bad idea. For me, the jury is out on the rest.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “But really, I think the excerpts you quoted reflect some good thought.”
    I agree. The problem is an environment where ever word is scrutinized to determine what it “really” means. There is know set of sequential steps that leads out of morass. Just a persistent 3 steps forward 2 steps back … and lots of prayer!

    Reply
  7. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    I think QG and Michael have hit on the chief issue: we don’t enough trust at this point to perform this task. Joining the crowd, I too would agree to a re-write in a flat second otherwise. But even then, I’d want it to be a more than one GA cycle change. It would be preferable if proposed changes could be sent out in 08, NOT FOR RATIFICATION, but for comment and response. (It would also be nice if they could be compelled to respond – I’m not sure how that would be framed, but it would cause people to be thinking about the issue – NOT JUST REACTING to some task force. As a corollary to this, the task force should not be sent out to sell the initiative – whatever you do, that is a mistake. If it has to be explained in a way that can only be understood by the members of the designing task force it is a failure. Specifically that would be an indication of a truly foggy document.) Yes, I know that this is a lumbering tortoise, but the alternative of quick, ill-considered action that doesn’t have widespread support would be very bad.

    Reply
  8. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “lumbering tortoise”
    Reminds me of my sister’s favorite line”
    “Like a mighty tortoise, God’s church marches on.”
    Thanks Will.

    Reply
  9. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    I think I like mighty tortoise better.
    As frustrating as that trait may be, and as urgent as the need for change may be – rapid, radical changes (predicated on the notion that any change is good) are most often hysterical reactions and cause more harm than good.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading