nFOG places church members under the authority not only of the session but “higher councils” (nFOG G-1.0103)…Members become “less” members of a local congregation and “more” members of the PCUSA.

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.

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete: the link (URL) to the original article is unavailable and has been removed. Also, one or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]