It Takes A Church...

Why I'm Staying... an open letter to my friends in the #PCUSA

Like many who will gather in Orlando, I share many concerns about the state of our denomination.  But, like some, I am still called to work within the covenant of relationships that have shaped and formed my life and faith for 25 years. Recently, I was engaged by a friend in a conversation about the reasons for staying in the PCUSA. This post is my response.

I realize that for some leaders leaving the PCUSA at this time is an issue of conscience.  For them, being members of a denomination or Presbytery where some would condone what they find to be in contradiction to the Scriptures is a violation of their consciences.  I too have deeply struggled with this and continue to wrestle with it, so it is not difficult for me trust them to their convictions.  I would guess that my opinions on this will matter little to these who for conscience's sake feel as if they must withdraw from the denomination, and frankly that is the way it should be. But, I offer this rationale in a spirit of inquiring conversation to any whom would be interested in perhaps finding a different way.

The small bit of perspective that I bring to this conversation is influenced significantly by my role as Moderator of the General Assembly Mid-Council Commission (formerly the Middle Governing Body Commission).  This work has led me to consider the discussion through two lenses:

1. a genuine curiosity and struggle in ecclesiology and
2. a genuine call to reconsider the mission of God in a post-Christendom world. 

First, I believe we are desperately in need of a post-Christendom Reformed ecclesiology. It goes without saying that we are in a season of deep cultural change. This moment allows us to reconsider many of the organizational and ecclesiological assumptions that have been shaped more by Christendom than by our theological tradition. Historically, Presbyterianism in America was itself an adaptation to a new world and a new context beyond state-sponsored churches.  Today, with the decline of Christendom and the rise of globalization, we have an opportunity to re-consider and even re-conceive that ecclesiological structure again.  Because of my work with the Mid-Council Commission, I have been able to engage in conversations about ecclesiology with other branches of the Reformed family, have seen models of mid-councils that are different than our own, have learned about other ways of 'being Presbyterian' in other national churches and have learned from our own rich history with historically All-Black Governing bodies and Korean non-geographic presbyteries.  I have come to recognize that there are lots of ways to “adapt” our theological "DNA" for a post-Christendom context that we have yet to even consider very deeply. 

Personally, my faith has been nourished by the western stream of Presbyterianism that is far more independent, at times more congregationally-identified and is very comfortable with the kind of generously ecumenical evangelicalism for which my alma mater, Fuller Theological Seminary, is known.  My “evangelical” colleagues within the Presbyterian Church have made significant contributions to the theological discussions around justification, sanctification, missiology and spiritual formation, but we really haven’t engaged in the theological discussion of ecclesiology very deeply.  We struggle with clearly talking about the unity of the church in genuinely practical ways, instead often defaulting to either ‘spiritual’ or ‘regulatory’ categories.  I believe that the broader church needs our voice in this discussion of ecclesiology and that we need the broader church to sharpen our ecclesiological thinking.

Even more, part of this rapidly changing context is a very regrettable polarity and incivility of issue politics.  We see this writ large in our government, and we tend to replicate it more than offering an alternative form of discourse, an alternative model of collaboration, and alternative practices of being diverse yet truly one.

Across the spectrum, we Presbyterians hold up "connectionalism" as one of our heartfelt, shared values.  Yet, I contend that we have yet to truly explore what that connectionalism could be in a less regulatory, more relational structure; or what it would like to express a clear theological, ecclesiological and constitutional unity that allows for real diversity, and genuine dissent without division.  For many of us, including me, this is as much a crisis of imagination as anything else.  We really can't conceive a way forward, we have yet to engage in the kinds of 'experiments' that would allow us to discover something new and we are stuck in mental models that seem to limit our choices to either regulatory uniformity or painful separation.

I am concerned that the anxiety of the moment and the drive to bring ‘relief’ from our tensions is keeping us from doing the hard work of truly defining and experimenting with a Reformed, Presbyterian ecclesiology in a post-Christendom, missional context.  If nothing else, staying within the PCUSA keeps me squarely in the middle of that critical ecclesiological conversation and exploration. 

Second, I am more energized by what could be than what is.  My perspective is framed more by the larger changes that are required of every church, every community of faith, and every theological institution that endeavors to remain culturally engaged and prophetic for the gospel of Jesus Christ today than any particular issue, no matter how important.

In my work with the Mid-Council Commission, I have been exposed to the overwhelming data that confirms what we all know intuitively.  The church as we know it is in decline.  Precipitous, decades-long decline. This is not just us as Presbyterians; it is the entire mainline tradition.  Until about 2001, it could have been said that there was a theological distinction in the conversation.  During the end of the last century, those with more evangelical theology were doing better generally speaking than our more progressive friends.  But not for the last decade.   We, with very few exceptions, are all in decline.  Indeed, that, not ordination standards, was the concern that inspired the now-famous ‘deathly ill’ letter.  Since the adoption of 10-A , that focus has been largely pushed aside. Some insist that the division on ordination standards is important enough to warrant this change of focus.  But, I believe that the central issue for our denomination is how to create the kinds of conditions that will equip and encourage congregations to work together in mission and discipleship in this rapidly changing context. 

To be sure, the PCUSA needs significant change and continued organizational and spiritual transformation.  Our Mid-Council Commission report will raise up the need to reengage the missional necessity to

• reengage the pew with presbyteries;
• for presbyteries to be “balconies” that offer naturally provincial people (aren’t we all?) larger perspective for wisdom, discernment and challenge;
• for the development of leadership capacity that can create communities of continual transformation and collaboration to faithfully adapt in each local context; and
• to rebuild trust in a world where there is so much cynicism and skepticism.

All of this is beyond structural changes that can be implemented within or by leaving the denomination.  As one who has spent the last 18 months charged with trying to find 'structural' and organizational 'models' that are 'responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship", I am concerned that the focus of creating of yet another denomination, at this time, can become a way of avoiding addressing the deeper issues of ecclesiology, discipleship and mission in a post-Christendom world. 

I am most hopeful that those in the Fellowship who remain within the PCUSA could be significant contributors to this conversation. Indeed, we need the voice and perspective they bring. I am deeply supportive and appreciative of the Fellowship as a kind of "order" within the PCUSA. I am hopeful that a broader conversation by leaders across our theological spectrum will enable us to do the necessary work of learning how to re-engage the whole people of God, creating genuine elder parity, developing new ways of functioning as leaders, rousing our stilted organizational imagination and raising up and supporting transparent leaders who will engender the slow (it’s always slow) restoration of trust.

Yes, there are significant frustrations that cannot be minimized. Yes, there are significant theological differences that cannot be ignored. Yes, there is a history of bad behavior and even worse rhetoric on all sides.  At the same time, perhaps the urgency of this moment--if we could be patient enough to stay together and at least attempt to experiment with new ways of being the church--could give rise to a new season of mission together.

One closing thought.  Next week, I will NOT be in Orlando.  Over a year ago, I was invited to be one of the speakers at a denominational conference on Disciple-Making Churches.  I will be addressing how discipleship in a changing world is an issue of developing adaptive leadership capacity within missional congregations.  I will also be consulting with a group of New Church Development Coaches on tools to help them do likewise.  It promises to be a rich time…for the 100 of us who will be there.  Meanwhile 2000 people will gather less than two hours away at the Fellowship Gathering to address these internal issues of strife and the possibilities of division.  

So where is the energy in our system focused? 

This is what must be addressed within the PCUSA, within the potential NRB, within the Fellowship, within every congregation, presbytery and denominational office. How could we create the conditions for the day when 2000 highly motivated and deeply engaged people will gather to learn together about forming disciple-making churches and planting new ones?

Again, I know there are some who believe that can only happen by breaking away from the denomination.  I understand and respect their decision. But, I believe the vital question of our day is “What does a MISSIONAL CHURCH in a post-Christendom world look like?” 

And while “Missional” has been a good, engaging (albeit often confused) conversation for the past decade and a half, the “Church” part is in need of much more reflection, at both congregational and ‘higher’ levels.  While the circumstances could change as rapidly as the world is changing around us, and while I respect the decisions of those who differ, I believe that we can still engage this question much better within the context of remaining in the PCUSA rather than by starting a new denomination.

Leaders Who Tend

tend/tend/ Verb:

1. Regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic:
2. Care for or look after; give one's attention to. In a recent “blog post conversation”

Christianity Today editor Mark Galli and I have been discussing the role of pastor as “chaplain” or “leader” or some kind of combination of both. Mark leans toward chaplain, I insist that we need more leaders in a changing world.

If we were sitting together in a coffee shop, I’d engage him more on some particulars, but mostly we agree on most of the most important things--not the least of which is that the scriptures and the early church is the primary source to which we need to look for guidance.

From following the comments on my blog, FB pages, the CT blog and Internet Monk blog, it is clear that Mark struck one very important nerve that all pastors (whichever model we employ), need to hear: The people we pastor expect us to care about them.

While we may disagree on the particular ways and priority of that care, there is a clear concern by all of us that the “tendency” of pastors is moving away from “tending” the flock. And frankly, for those of us who believe that our role is more about cultivate communities of faith that move more and more into the mission of the Kingdom, this word is even more important for us.

This is especially true of those (like me) who see the need for pastors to function as leaders of a missional communities. For most people, "leader" conjures up images of distant autocrats (even if good and benevolent). Even more, those who embrace the call of leadership are quickly distrusted as ambitious, self-serving and at best, treat their people as mere “pawns” to lead into spiritual battle.

Everybody wants to be connected to a leader who really, tangible and if at all possible personally cares about them.

Mark writes in his most recent response to me: “I think there is a reason the early church, when it thought about what it meant to be a church, put the emphasis on worship, catechesis, and the presbyter/overseer as shepherd and teacher of the flock, not the general of an army.”

While I completely agree that in whatever model we use of pastor our primary tasks are leading in worship, catechesis and teaching, what is interesting to me is how often the metaphor of “shepherd” is used as a rebuttal to the idea of “leader”.

In the Old Testament particularly, shepherds are the biblical metaphor for Israel’s leaders.

Then Moses said to the LORD, “O LORD, you are the God who gives breath to all creatures. Please appoint a new man as leader for the community. Give them someone who will guide them wherever they go and will lead them into battle, so the community of the LORD will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” Numbers 27:15-17

This theme continues in the Prophets: Not with a denunciation of “leadership” but instead with a passionate admonition that those who lead be good, fair and especially caring leaders-- leaders after “God’s own heart” (Ezekiel 34, Jeremiah 3); leaders who put the well-being of the people before their own; leaders who are trustworthy and who indeed love the people they serve.

Jesus is, of course, the quintessential Shepherd and Paul demonstrates the depth of this kind of care when he uses an even more intimate metaphor.

But we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children.  So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:7–8)

For Paul, love for the "flock" is expressed by pastors not only through care, but also through teaching and equipping, like parents who “train up” their children in the way they should go:

And you know that we treated each of you as a father treats his own children. We pleaded with you, encouraged you, and urged you to live your lives in a way that God would consider worthy. For he called you to share in his Kingdom and glory. 1 Thessalonians 2:11–12

Indeed, for Jesus  (Mark 10:42-45) and Paul (Ephesians 4:11-13) all Christian leadership (and pastoral leadership in particular), is highly relational with pastors (and others) “equipping the saints” by serving as “ligaments” that connect and strengthen the body (See this series of posts I wrote called “Ligament Lessons”).

But to be sure, for pastors called to "shepherd the flock" (1 Peter 5:2)—just as it was for Christ--that love is for a larger purpose: That the people of God would fulfill the mission of God to the glory of God.

Shepherds don’t just ‘tend’ the sheep, protecting (primarily by teaching), and caring for them, but they also “lead” them.  Jesus, the Good Shepherd, didn’t just heal people because he cared about them (though he clearly did!) but also to reveal the presence of the reign of God, to demonstrate the nature of the Kingdom that he had come to inaugurate and to recruit and train followers in that particular manner that they should carry on his mission.

Previously I have written about the competing values that most pastors have to manage and the complexity of our task today. We are to lead and equip the people of God into the mission of God and to care for each person with the love of tangible embrace of Christ. We are called to offer both love for people just where they are and to call and equip them to be part of the Kingdom mission of Jesus in the world all around them.

From a number of comments on the blog posts, it is clear to me that--while I still see a need for a different kind of pastoral leadership in a changing world, one thing has not changed at all:

People need to experience the love of God as they are led into the mission of God.

And if they do not feel loved, they will likely not let anyone lead them anywhere.

Mark Galli Responds: Pastors in a changing world--Leaders or Chaplains?

Christianity Today Senior Managing Editor Mark Galli continues our public conversation on the proper role of pastors.  I am indebted to Mark for taking the time to engage in this discussion with me.  We are both hopeful that it will lead to something helpful and edifying to the Church.  Thanks Mark.

Tod

I am honored that Tod would take the trouble to write such a thorough and generous response to my column.  It’s clear that we agree on much.  We both think that pastors need to be pastors at least some of the time, and that we need less of the corporate leadership model.  And we both agree that a pastor is the head of an institution, which requires him/her to be a leader of that institution.  It’s not an either/or job, but a both/and.

But how much fun would it to just rub each other’s backs?  J So, here is where I’d like to push back, and with a little rhetorical vigor:  I’m simply not convinced of the new vision being cast by missional advocates, which is grounded in the assumption that we live in an utterly new era of church history, one calling for a new model of ministry.

First, I have to say I no longer believe it is possible to be a “servant-leader” in our culture.  In our culture, the lure and pride and glory of the word “leader” swallows up “servant.”  Every self-described servant-leader I’ve met, in the end, has turned out to be mostly leader, and very little servant.  This may seem a harsh and sweeping generalization, but I have encountered so many “servant leaders” who have no idea what servant means (except to lead more boldly from the top, “Because after all, when I use my leadership gifts, it helps the church!” they’ll say), I’ve given up believing in “servant leadership.”  Please notice that Jesus, while recognizing this his disciples would, in fact, be leaders, never used the term “servant-leadership” or anything like it. Servant was all. Jesus is the main one who gets the title of leader, though it comes in the form of “Lord.” There is a reason that pastors have been called “ministers” for centuries.

Second, I’m simply not convinced that our age is so unique that we need a significantly different model of ministry than we see in the New Testament.  As I alluded to in my piece, the clear picture of the church’s ministry and that of Jesus was much more along the lines of pastor/shepherd than leader.  The one New Testament letter that spells out the purpose and function of the church is Ephesians. And Ephesians is about nothing if it is not about worship, “to the praise of his glory.” The mission of the church there is to worship.  And this, of course, accords with the ultimate “mission” and destination of the church: worship in heaven (Rev. 4, for example).  The mission of the church on earth—if it is to have integrity--must reflect its ultimate “mission” and destination, otherwise what in the world are we evangelizing people for?  Merely to become evangelists?  No, we evangelize people so that they might join the heavenly throng and worship—forever and now.

The other mission of the church in Ephesians, of course, is bringing to maturity the members of the church, to the full stature of Christ, so that everyone in the church will live in the unity of love.  There is, in fact, very little missional language in Ephesians as we use the term missional today.  The only time that happens, (like in chapter 3) is when Paul talks about his unique calling.  But nowhere does he suggest that his calling is to be adopted by everyone.  He understands his calling as unique. But when it comes to talking about the church’s general calling, things missional are hardly to be found.

Now let me be clear: ONE of the callings of the church is to send certain people out in mission!  Thus the gifts of apostleship and evangelism.  But only some members have these gifts.  It’s not the way the entire church’s purpose is ever talked about.  I would even argue that the Great Commission is the commission to apostles (those like the original 12 who are “sent out”), but not such to each and every member of the church.  It is only the church’s commission because apostles are identified and supported by the church.  The church, as such, has a fuller, more complete “mission”: worship of the living God and bringing people to maturity and unity in Christ.  As noted, this is a fuller vision because this is what we will do for eternity.  To worship and grow together in unity is our reason for existence, from beginning to end (Eph. 1). 

This does not mean that each and every member of the church is primarily called to make the local church the be all and end all of his/her life—as if the church were nothing but a happy holy club.  Some are called to give themselves to the church in this way.  But most are simply called to spend the bulk of their energies raising families, being good neighbors, fulfilling their callings.  In this sense, the pastor is the “chaplain” of these people—leading them in worship, catechizing them, praying with them so that they can go about their daily lives as witnesses to the love of Christ.  The pastor is not “the leader of a people on mission,” but the shepherd of a community that worship and grows together in unity, and of people who are learning to love God and neighbor in their daily lives.

Can this model become myopic and self-centered?  Of course!  Can this make the church lazy?  To be sure!  But what model of the church can eliminate human sin?  I know of none.  And what model made inroads in the most “postmodern” society history has ever known? This one.

 Let us remember that the early church made its way in a culture that was pluralism on steroids, and highly relativistic at that.  Such was the legacy of the Greek mystery religions, among others.  A god for every city.  A philosophy for every man.  And no one having the temerity to say he had the way, the truth, and the life—because each worshipped their own gods (Acts 17:16ff).  The church grew up in this setting, and eventually transformed Roman culture not by being missional in the way it is talked about today, but when it acted like the church I’ve described above.  No bold plans to transform society.  So big dreams of changing culture.  Just a focus on congregational life: worship, preaching, catechesis, and simple acts of charity (taking care of widows and orphans, attending to the sick during plagues, and so forth). 

 Again, there were the occasional (and famous) early missionaries.  St. Mark in Egypt.  St. Thomas in India.  Gregory the Wonderworker in third century Asia Minor, among others.  And so on. But they stand out precisely because they were unusual.  They were not what defined the local church, but they were, in fact, made possible by the ministry of the local church.  

 Okay, that’s enough push back for now.  I have deep admiration for the motives and passion of those committed to the missional movement, in its varied forms.  So much of what goes on in the name of missional is right and good and frankly inspiring (albeit intimidating: the commitment of some missional leaders is amazing). I just happen to think this model makes unrealistic demands on most church members, creates needless guilt, inculcates pride, and in the long run leads to despair.  That’s all J  Okay, I’m being dramatic.  But I still think the missional model has pastoral and theological problems. I want what missional leaders want: a healthy church that displays the love of Christ to the world. I just think the missional approach, as I understand it, will backfire soon enough, because it traffics too much in contemporary cultural assumptions about what is important, useful, effective, and so forth.

  I think there is a reason the early church, when it thought about what it meant to be a church, put the emphasis on worship, catechesis, and the presbyter/overseer as shepherd and teacher of the flock, not the general of an army. 

 Okay: I have this feeling that not everyone who reads this will be convinced.  And I have no doubt I’ve overlooked something, or misrepresented the missional movement in some ways.  So I look forward to some vigorous responses, and learning from the exchange.

 --Mark Galli

We Need Chaplains...Just not More Of Them...Not Now.

In a recent editorial, Mark Galli offered a thoughtful and provocative defense of the pastor-as-chaplain model vs. the pastor-as-leader model.  Galli criticizes the growing impersonal institutionalism of the church that holds up the model of the megachurch as the only true vision of congregational health and success (and the megachurch “lead pastor” as the only true model of pastoral vitality).  I couldn’t agree with him more. 

Without doubt, there is continual need for women and men with spiritual sensitivity to the souls of people (in the holistic sense that Galli describes so well). Indeed, there is something incredibly important occurring when a pastor accompanies us through a dark night of the soul, a personal trauma, a moment of crisis.  And without doubt there have been far too many churches that have begun to take on the ethos of a corporation that seem to miss these most important moments. I couldn't agree with him more.

Galli wants to raise up the importance of this pastoral presence by challenging our ideas of the "pastor as leader" and--by and large--I agree with his critique.  If leader means "someone who makes the organization grow in numbers, dollars and reputation," it is a deficient definition indeed.

Galli goes on to assert that the model most criticized--that of “chaplain”--is actually the model of Jesus who traveled throughout Galilee as a healer. He  writes, “For centuries, the pastorate was thought to be about "the cure of souls"—souls being understood not as the spiritual part of us, but as the fullness of our humanity. The pastor has traditionally been thought of as one who does ministry in the midst of a people who are sick and dying, and who administers in word and sacrament, in Scripture and in prayer, the healing balm of the Lord. So who told us that the pastor is primarily a leader/entrepreneur/change agent and anything but a curer of souls? And why do we believe them?”

And it is at this very point that I want to offer a nuance that I hope will be received by Mr. Galli (and the hundreds who “liked” this article on Facebook) as an opportunity to continually clarify the complexity of the pastoral task in our day. 

Yes, “for centuries, the pastorate was thought to be about the ‘cure of souls’.”  I agree.  That’s the way it USED to be.  During the centuries of Christendom, this was an appropriate and helpful metaphor.  In a culture where Christianity was in the cultural center, “chaplain” or even “pastor” was a crucial component for keeping powers-that-be attuned to the word of God and the way of Jesus when other cultural forces were present to lead us into temptation and conformity with “the world”. In a Christendom world, pastors were needed to continually bring a word of truth, a touch of healing and a prophetic reminder of what God required of his people, an institution or a nation (which is also true in a theocracy, as Galli points out in his use of Nathan as a “servant” to David).

Indeed in our cultural institutions that still recognize the need for someone to be the embodiment of the spiritual in the corporate life, we celebrate.  We can rejoice that there are institutions like schools, hospitals, the military (even Congress!) that continue to call on individuals to be available to heal, to care, to counsel and yes, speak prophetically in the midst of the complexities of organizational life.  And indeed, this is the model that is still advocated by many of my pastoral heroes like Eugene Peterson, whom Galli holds up as the model (see here for another post where I “Dare to Differ with Eugene Peterson”).

But increasingly, this is not the mission of the church today. In a post-Christendom context, the metaphor of pastor as healer, chaplain, or curer of souls is inadequate to the task and literally killing the church.  Churches that continue to cling to a Christendom context and expectation for pastors (as seen mostly in mainline churches like my own) are dramatically in decline and becoming increasingly irrelevant to the changing cultural contexts that are far more like a mission field in the first century than the cultural contexts of the most recent past centuries for which Galli (and most of us, frankly—even me) pine nostalgically.

But that day is gone. 

The Missional Movement, as originally inspired by the insights of Lesslie Newbigin expressed theologically by Darrell Guder and others, has given rise to an entirely different understanding of a pastor as the leader of a people in mission. 

In this post-Christendom context, the congregation, not the pastor, is the embodiment of Jesus (literally “the body of Christ”).  The congregation, not the pastor, is the true ‘healer of souls’ going into the world to demonstrate and proclaim the reign of God.  The laity (that is the whole people of God), not just the pastor, is the prophetic voice to power in boardrooms, courtrooms, and classrooms.  The Church, not just particular Christians, is the presence of God, the temple of the Spirit and corporately, communally and contextually—the manifold witness of God to the particular locales of God’s world.

To be sure, leadership in a missional context is NOT the model offered by the megachurch either.  The institutional isomorphism that gave rise to the megachurch as the model of a successful church-as-corporation is just as rooted in Christendom as the mental model of “pastor-as-chaplain.”  And megachurches for all of their numbers and name-recognition are also in decline, by the way.  While there are certainly exceptions, most megachurches continue to thrive most in parts of the United States that still hold the most cultural Christianity--the geographic south.  It is right for us to recognize that that model, while still vibrant in some places, is likely not the best model for most of us.

What is needed today in our churches is not to replace “leader” with “servant”, as Galli suggests, but a deeper understanding of the kind of servant-leadership needed in this changing world.  As the world changes, denominations, seminaries, thought-institutions and and voices of influence like Christianity Today need to continually affirm and support a changing paradigm of pastoral leadership.

This pastoral leadership paradigm is not yet clear (and it will likely not be just one ‘model’).  We are more aware of what it is not than what it is and we know that it will look different in every context.

I believe it will be more apostolic than chaplaincy, more about cultivating worshipping missional learning communities (isn’t that what a church of “disciples” really is?), than managing a vender of religious services, or providing private spiritual counsel.  It will be both personal and communal; it will be both liturgical and public.  It will be complex, holistic, rooted in and expressed differently in every particular context.  It will be about organizational leadership that is organic.  And it will be in every way about transformation. 

(See here for more posts where I explore pastors as transformational leaders.)

We need pastors (and frankly leaders in every sector of society) who are continually being transformed who can lead individuals in their own transformation and communities in communal transformation.  We need women and men who are not only gifted in the cure of souls, but also the cultivation of communities of witness and mission. We need more pastors who can teach the faith, cultivate spiritual maturity and equip communities of saints to live and proclaim the reign of God in the mission field that is right past the church parking lot and changing rapidly.  

Leadership is about equipping people to grow so that they can faithfully face the challenges in front of them. We don’t need more chaplains.  We need more leaders. 

We just aren’t sure exactly what they look like yet.

Defining Leadership...

 

 

This little riff, produced by the good folks at The High Calling, is my take on leadership as learned from Ronald Heifetz, Peter Block and Abraham Kuyper...

NEXT Fellowship of Presbyterians? Could a Maturing, Motivated, Missional middle be emerging? #PCUSA #MGBcomm

As one of the few people who is on both the Fellowship of Presbyterians and the NEXT Church mailing lists, I read the NEXT Church recent “Open Letter to the Church” with great interest.  Especially the opening section that read as follows…

“We share many of (The Fellowship of Presbyterians') perspectives about our beloved church:

• They grieve our often ineffectual ways of being church. We agree.
• They grieve a loss of meaningful evangelism in the church. We agree.
• They speak of new ways of being connectional which are more relational and less bureaucratic.
• They grieve that only 12 new congregations were established in 2010. We agree.
• They speak of the need for a missional church. We agree.
• They say the time for fighting must end. We agree.        
•  They say, “We are not leaving the church; our church has left us.”  While we hold them accountable for their decision to leave, we agree that the church is not what it used to be.”

As the Moderator of the Mid-Council Commission (formerly Middle Governing Body Commission), I have been spending a lot of time “on the balcony” watching the evolving ‘dance’ in this amazing and confusing season of life. But, perhaps most interesting and engaging to me are the common themes that are arising in both of these large groups and in many, many other conversations around the church.  From GA staffers, to EPs, to Synod Leaders, to ruling and teaching elders across the country, to frustrated folk on the sidelines, I hear

• We want effectual ways of being church today.
• We want meaningful evangelism today
• We want more relational ways of being connectional today.
• We want our focus to be on mission to the world not denominational fights.
• We want to plant new congregations.

I believe it is the voice of the Spirit in the church. You could even call it “likemindedness.”  

Yes…there are some significant differences between and even among these groups.

But could there be in these shared values something truly of the Spirit? Can we discern, in the middle of the swirl of change and anxiety a way forward together?

Perhaps it’s just me… But I am beginning to see

The outlines of a way of re-capturing our identity.  
A way of adapting our theology, history and tradition to a new context.
A way of renewing our vows to each other. 
A way of engaging a new generation. 
And especially and most hopefully, a way back into the world with the mission of the gospel. 

As our Mid-Council Commission prepares for our next meeting in Indianapolis next week, we are readying ourselves with reports, theological papers and lots of conversation around the church.  We have worked long and hard this summer and we are hopeful to come out of this meeting with some conversational starting points to put before the church for a fruitful dialogue months in advance of the next General Assembly.  After a long, helpful “listening phase” we are looking to begin the “experimenting and discerning phase”.  We have been exhorted, urged and even chided to “be bold”, to “think outside the box” and to draw from the wisdom of our history to re-conceive a new way of being Presbyterian in a changing world.  From the very beginning we had sensed that God was already at work in the church, and perhaps today we are beginning to see a new thing that God is bringing out of the ashes of conflict.

As I have talked to and listened to leaders across the church, I am beginning to see—for perhaps the first time in almost 300 years when the Presbyterian faith was contextualized on this continent as something other than a "state church"--an opportunity to utterly re-conceive what it means to be Presbyterian in this post-Christendom context. 

(This is indeed what we mean by saying that we are “Reformed and always reforming”, isn’t it?  Think about it: Just being Presbyterian means that in our “DNA” is the kind of adaptation that said, “Hey instead of having one guy be the bishop, we could have a collegial bishop.  What do you think of that?”)

I see a meaningful, maturing, motivated and missional middle coming together to draw upon the historic values of our past and faithfully reinterpret them to engage a far different world than any of our forebears could have considered. 

Let me say a bit more about each of those traits:

Maturing. Notice I didn’t write “mature”, but “maturing”.  We need a structure for lifetime learners, for continually adapting disciples, for those who are restless to keep pressing on, growing, discerning, surrendering, mutually submitting, humbly staying open to the word of God and the voice of the Spirit..  We need a structure that gives freedom to fail, and encourages self and communal expression.  We need a structure that will call us to live in mutual submission and growing trust as we grow in wisdom, understanding, faithfulness and fruitfulness.  We need a structure that adapts to and accommodates those who are committed to building trust through transparency, accountability, and congruence of belief and life.  We need a structure that allows for both clearly communicated convictions and the patience to respectfully be with others who we believe are in error.   I envision a much more “open spaced” structure where the system honors, values, rewards, invests in and even adapts to those who are “passionately willing to take personal responsibility.”  I envision a permission-giving structure that is built around shared agreements, covenants, values and convictions rather than around top-down enforced alignment.  And I envision a structure where those who can calmly and clearly express their convictions (even deep disagreements) also exhibit Gamaliel-like patience with each other and room to live out their own convictions.

Motivated. One of the rules of “Open Space” organizing is that you can convene anything if you are “willing to take personal responsibility” and are “passionate.”  Passionate Presbyterians may seem like a oxymoron, but it doesn’t have to be that way. In so many ways, the regulatory models of the past half-century have sapped us of our entrepreneurial spirit, our buoyant collegiality and our joyful communal identity, but in Presbyteries all over the country there is a well-spring of creativity where motivated people are giving room to experiment and innovate, to align freely around shared passions and convictions, to come together in the name of Jesus and give a fresh expression to their deepest beliefs.  At their worst, our Presbyteries are like family gatherings of sullen teenagers who are being forced into arranged marriages.  We need a structure that rewards passion and motivation.  That seeks to be not only “open space” but “open source”.  That generously celebrates innovation; that respectfully collaborates in one creative leap of faith after another; that encourages big risks, big failures and the deep learning that comes from them.  As Presbyterians, that means that we are also motivated by a vision of the church that exists beyond a congregation.  We are motivated to express the greater unity of the church through a passionate engagement in communities of missional congregations.  We are passionate about demonstrating the wisdom and fruitfulness of an elder-led, collaborative way of being the church that has clear theological convictions, is in submission to Jesus and in mutual submission to each other, is obedient to the scriptures and looks to the wisdom of our confessions… and we are willing to set aside anything that drains our motivation, that creates too much constraint, regulation and defaults to old mental models. 

Missional.  We are having lots of discussion around this term, but in a nutshell what missional means is that the mission of God in Jesus Christ is the central organizing principle for the church and that the local gathering of believers is the strategy of the Spirit for extending that mission.  To be missional requires personal and communal participation.  To be missional means that the unique, specific, contextual, communally discerned expression of a community of believers’ shared values is the reason for being for any congregation.  To be missional means that we live in the conviction that every structure beyond the congregation exists so that congregations—who are in covenants together--can fulfill their mission.

And if there is one clear missional conviction that is growing into a chorus of shared enthusiasm: 

Being missional to Presbyterians at this season of history means making a fundamental priority of new church development.  

The GAMC envisions 1001 new worshipping communities.  I think that number is way too low.  How about 10 times that many? How about DOUBLING the number of congregations in PCUSA in the next generation?  They will NOT look like “First Presbyterian of Anyplace”, but to be missional must mean that first, foremost and the primary priority of every structure (including seminaries and other groups charged with developing a new generation of leaders) is the conception, birth, nurture and maturity of a whole new generation of “churches”.

Adaptive Change requires “giving back the work to the people most affected.” I believe that whatever models we offer and constitutional changes we propose they must be about more personal engagement, more personal responsibility-taking, more passionate convictions, more freedom and creativity within safe, clear shared boundaries than ever before.  We must have a structure that insists that we adapt toward health and faithfulness, toward those who are willing to keep maturing, who are motivated to take on the mantle of calling and personal responsibility by continually re-engaging and re-committing to each other, and who are from start to finish utterly committed to the missional principle of the local congregation as the primary locus for participating in the mission of Jesus Christ in every context.

If we can create this NEXT Fellowship… count me in.

A Letter to My Congregation For 9/11

Being Fit for Anything

“It is not the crisis that builds something within us—it simply reveals what we are made of already…If you are not doing the task that is closest to you now, which God has engineered into your life, when the crisis comes, instead of being fit for battle, you will be revealed as being unfit…”  Oswald Chambers

 Tomorrow, the nation’s eyes will be looking backward, commemorating that unforgettable tragedy and the onset of a decade of turbulence, war and struggle.  Ten years ago, the churches of the nation filled.  Our shocked hearts longed for the embrace of other human souls, our teary eyes looked toward the heavens with the prayer of the psalms—“from whence will my help come?”

 And the churches stayed filled.  For about six months.  Within a year, church attendance across the country and interest in Christian faith was lower than it had been before the attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.  Even as we asked our younger men and women to go off to war, we at home went back to business as usual.  We went shopping, we bought houses and we went into so much debt that we are now in the throes of a recession that seems like it could last as long as the war.

What did the crises of the past decade reveal about us?  What light has it shed upon the readiness of our hearts?  Have we seen what we are made of?

At San Clemente Presbyterian Church, we found that while the huge crowds of the fall of 2001 didn’t last, a number of people who came stayed.  And a number of those who sought embrace actually became embracers of others.  We voted to tear down our buildings two weeks after 9/11.  (I still get choked up thinking of the trusting souls who passed that vote in the midst of so much uncertainty.)  We started a building project that would take almost all of the next decade.  We truly transformed into a “Community FOR the community.” And we continued to grow. 

What we discovered about ourselves this past decade is that we are a forward-looking, mission-focused COMMUNITY.  We embrace each other when we are fearful, we wrap our arms around families who are sending their beloved ones into harm’s way, we welcome those without spiritual homes and we will do practically anything (including tearing our church down to the ground and rebuilding it) in order to “prepare a place” for all.

Tomorrow morning, Pastor Charlie Campbell will preach.  He will remind us of that which never changes.  He will bring us into the presence of God and continue to pastor our hearts as worshippers. I will be at a sister church in Long Beach for the morning. 

San Clemente Presbyterian Church was founded by Christians from Long Beach.  Over 80 years ago they used to drive up the long single-lane highway on Sunday mornings to help plant a church in a community that was then far off the beaten track.  What started as a beach Bible Study and a small cadre of people who didn’t have a building for over 25 years has become this vibrant, fit, community of 1400 members.  And tomorrow, I’ll go to return the favor. 

I have been asked by Pastor Chris Logan, of Community Presbyterian Church in Long Beach to come and lead them in a Sunday morning worship and a retreat next Saturday to consider their future.  They too want to be a church that is fit for the challenges before them.  They too want to consider what God would have them do to be a blessing to the community around them. I will go and tell them the story of what our brothers and sisters in Long Beach did so many decades ago.  I will go and tell them about a church that has become so filled with faith that when other churches went into decline, they poured themselves out in love.  I will go and tell them that they are not alone as they seek to live into their future. 

Ten years ago, we discovered that our commitment to the scriptures, to being a Christian community and to shared mission was what we were made of.  Tomorrow, as we look back, we’ll also keep asking God to use the coming years  to make us fit for the work of the Kingdom. I’ll pray for you as you worship, please pray for me as I speak. 

I’ll see you next Sunday and will tell you all about it.

Pastor Tod

The View from the Back Ballroom and The Question I Kept Asking at the Fellowship Gathering. #pcusa #mgbcomm #mn2011

It’s been almost two weeks since I arrived home from Minneapolis.  Since then I have been in lots of conversations, lurked on Facebook discussions and answered emails about the impressions of the Fellowship Gathering.  I’ll spare you a “conference review”, there are plenty out there that seem to capture the proceedings from various angles. 

But one perspective that I haven’t heard revolves around the question I kept asking in the back of the ballroom. You see, I was seated in the back room with the bureaucrats (which is what they called themselves as they teased me about where I was placed.) I am not a member of the Fellowship, though I pastor a church with a lot of pro-Fellowship leaning and tend to run in the same theological circles as the leaders. I was asked to lead a seminar on Adaptive Change because of consulting work that I do, but I assume that because I am the Moderator of a General Assembly Middle Governing Body Commission I was seated in the backroom with the GA staffers, the Synod Execs and the GP/EPs of Presbyteries. I have gotten to know a number of these folks this past year through this work and I have experienced—just as it was repeatedly reported at the Fellowship Gathering—that the national staff out of Louisville are very fine, very competent, deeply committed and genuinely eager to serve whatever God is doing in this church in this most turbulent time.  The same is true of the vast majority of the Synod and Presbytery Execs.  (Oh, I have heard some horror stories of heavy handed regulatory types wielding the Book of Order and threatening “original jurisdiction” at the drop of a hat, but mostly they seem to be the ghosts of Presbyteries past that continue to haunt us.)

As we broke into discussion groups to talk about the Fellowship and the various “tiers”, I expected the backroom of bureaucrats to be seething in defensiveness and roiling in anger over the possibilities of a rabble-rousing ground-up group of church leaders suggesting that they had better ideas for running a denomination.

But there wasn’t.  (At least not that I could tell.)

Indeed, I experienced exactly the opposite: Deep, appreciative inquiry: Lots of interested and grateful conversation.  An honest wrestling with issues about both what divides us (Yep, the ordination issues are huge) and what unites us (EVERYBODY embraces the missional conversation of “Tier 1”.) There was serious and thoughtful consideration of ideas both widely agreed upon and those that seemed like sad foregone conclusions (without question, a lot of churches really are preparing to leave regardless of what the “Seven Dwarfs”, The Covenant Network, Gradye Parsons or any Commission does.) And while a number of Synod Execs and Presbytery officials winced at the generalized criticisms leveled at Presbyteries, most agreed that this kind of conversation is exactly what they hoped to have “back home.”  They too are looking for new models of being in covenant community together.  They too are aware of the decline of the churches and the dwindling resources.  They have taken on calls to enter the fray and many of them are passionate about finding a way in the wilderness.  (You could almost see the EPs pining for this kind of creative, enthusiastic engagement at a Presbytery meeting. There was a kind of wistful longing in the backroom: It’s so great that so many are gathered to talk about the future of the church, why did it have to come to the threat of schism to bring us together?)  

But perhaps the most interesting thing to me was the discussion around the question that I kept asking over and over again:  “Is there anything in the New Reformed Body that we wouldn’t want in our OLD reformed body?” Most heartily agreed: This is--with some caveats on some important things that we need to talk through--exactly what we want the “old” PCUSA to be. 

Now, to be clear the Fellowship is NOT synonymous with the “New Reformed Body,” But when John Crosby said, “The purpose of the Fellowship is to unite like-minded churches connected for common ministry and mission” most agreed that--with some genuine urgency to clarify and even qualify the definition of “like-mind”--this would be a good working definition of a PRESBYTERY.  (Not a complete definition, but a pretty functional one.)

So, as the moderator of a Commission charged with discerning if “our historical structures the best platforms for carrying our mission into the future” I sensed—even in the” backroom of bureaucrats”—that there is an emerging awareness that a conversation about organization around covenants, relationships, mission and yes, even some degree of like-mindedness could actually stimulate and inspire more mission and creativity that the structural assumptions of our past.

So, please take this post as my attempt to continue the conversation that was happening in the backroom with the bureaucrats.  As I prepare to Moderate the next Middle Governing Body Commission meeting in October, I’d ask the broader church help me with my thinking about this. Some questions I have been asking?

1. What does “like-minded” mean?  Jim Singleton has clearly and repeatedly said that the Fellowship is not interested in “same-minded” subscriptionism.  But, how “alike” do our minds have to be to “connect for common ministry and mission”? Could there be different “layers” of like-mindedness within a greater unity?  (My next post…)
   
   What does our ecclesiology (not our politics) demand of us?  What does the missional challenge of a post-Christendom, open-sourced, flat world require of us in terms of shared values, convictions and thinking?  If we are organized from the “ground up” through our RELATIONSHIPS and for MISSION what structure would we use?  If the Presbytery is the “corporate Bishop” that points to the unity of the church, could there be room for missional and theological covenants within an even greater, broader unity.  (The conversation about the “orders” of the Roman Catholic church sparked lots of interest as a way of thinking about all of this.)   
   
   
2. What does “likeminded” do?  Or in other words, what does the word “common” mean in Crosby’s definition?  Can we have a denomination that is broad enough to include people who have different convictions leading to different expressions of ministry and mission furthering the reign of God in on different fronts?  Wouldn’t an “incarnational missional model” for a congregation look really different in urban San Francisco or rural Kansas than in the southern California beach town full of retired Marines that I serve in San Clemente?  And why not allow those who have a “common” call to an expression of mission make “covenants” to be a community of mutual accountability, support and leadership development? Wouldn’t at least this degree of “like-mindedness” allow for less conflict and greater missional engagement?
   
   
3. And perhaps most pointedly, why is the historical organizing principle of our denomination geography? Why is the organizing principle of the ROMAN EMPIRE considered to be God’s sovereign decree for establishing communities? (Yes, we have a document on principles of church order that says this.)  We don’t tell members that they have to go to their neighborhood congregation.  We don’t tell candidates that they must serve in the church that they grew up in (indeed we tell them most of the time that they cannot.)  Instead we affirm that calling and fit are part of the wise discernment processes of both members and ministers, because when there is not a clear sense of discerned calling and a good “fit” conflict arises and mission is thwarted.  If we assume that in order for the church to minimize conflicts and be able to focus on their mission, pastors should be a good theological fit and share similar missional convictions and values with their congregants, why not assume the same for churches, pastors and ruling elders in Presbyteries? 

So, after spending a good deal of time at our tables and in lots of other discussions on this topic, I’d like to bring this topic out of the back room of bureaucrats and open it up to the wider church.  Help me probe with all seriousness in a wide- open, transparent, all-the-cards-on-the-table, “beginners’ mind” sort of way:

Why NOT organize “covenant communities of missional congregations” (Darrell Guder’s fine definition of a Presbytery) around COVENANT-making, missional-calling and relationships rather than geographical locale? What would we lose? What could be the unintended negative consequences?  What could be the “adjacent possibilities” for both mission and unity that we might discover in experimenting with giving permission to allow some to reorganize this way?

Next Post: Layers of Like-Mindedness: Unity and Mission as Competing Values.

Canoeing the Mountains: Leadership in Times of Change

I was invited to give a break out session on Leadership at the recent Fellowship of Presbyterians event in Minneapolis.  Here is the link to the slides for those who are interested.  Thanks to all who attended and for the generous feedback afterward.

Download Canoeing the Mountains_Leading Through Adaptive Change_Fellowship PCUSA Gathering

For more information on our work with churches at TAG Consulting, including the opportunity to take a free church snapshot, click here.

For links to the books I referenced in my presentation, see the Leader's Library at right.

For those who would like to take part in the discussion  and follow the work of our Middle Governing Body Commission, these links will help.

Facebook MGB Commission Discussion Group

PCUSA MGB Commission Website

You can also follow me on twitter @todbol or friend me on Facebook.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

One Source, Many Streams: On Being Presbyterian in a Parched World #pcusa #mgbcomm

Tod Bolsinger, Ph.D.
Teaching Elder, San Clemente Presbyterian Church
Moderator, Middle Governing Body Commission

In the opening to the Institutes, Calvin writes of the “knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves” as like “rivulets” that lead to the “spring” of wisdom. In a similar way, I see different rivulets or streams that come from the common wellspring of the wisdom of our Reformed theology and governance by elders.  To be sure, Presbyterians have always been a diverse lot.  We have several different Presbyterian denominations, we have some pretty different theological themes even within the denominations, and we have different WAYS of being Presbyterian, even within our own PCUSA denomination. 

One of the presentations we heard as the Middle Governing Body Commission was about the different theological and historical traditions that made up the earliest American Presbyterian Church (English, Scots-Irish). Interestingly, as I go around the church listening to folks talk about what Presbytery and Presbyterian means to them, I pick up (at least) three different “mental models” that align roughly with different “streams” that make up the PCUSA today, even though we are a long way from those early American roots.

When we talk about being “Presbyterian” what do we mean by “Presbytery”?  What do we mean by a “denomination”?  And what is the “church” (or even “Church”)?

(Warning: Generalization alert! The following is my wide, sweeping, generalization of how I experience a number of conversations around the PCUSA today.  Your mileage may vary.)

Mostly the conversation divides between the two streams that existed as different denominations prior to Reunion in 1983. 

The Northern Stream is what I call the Institutional Movement Stream.  In this stream, the denomination is both an Institution and a Movement.  It is a large, educated, influential, culture-shaping movement where our leaders stand toe-to-toe with ecumenical, national and cultural leaders and engage in big ideas about important topics.  It’s an intellectual and academic movement; a “halls of power” movement and the big ideas of the movement are lived out in the local “precincts” called congregations. It is the movement of Princeton and McCormick and Pittsburgh and the old New York City office.  It is about Declarations to nations and corporations, and Pastoral Letters to national and ecumenical leaders. It is held together by grand concepts, academic debate and democratic processes.  In the Northern Stream pastors talk about being a classmate with the Stated Clerk, about the number of Moderators of the past they know personally, how General Assembly is a big messy act of faithful democratic discernment and the Presbytery is a mini-congress where we come together mostly to debate and vote. Diversity of opinion is the coin of the realm and institutional and movement unity amidst the “precinct” diversity is the sign of the robust health of the Stream.

The Southern Stream is what I call the Presbytery Centered Stream. In this stream, the Presbytery--NOT the denomination-- is central. This stream used to (literally!) be the “old boys club.”  And the relationships are thick and the history is deep. The Presbytery is all about the relationships that have been built over the years and the friendships that have been formed, even forged, in the midst of ministry crisis and especially in the face of deep disagreement.  The Presbytery meeting is where elders of all kinds gather to examine candidates to see who gets in the conversation or not and what the theological nature of the fellowship will be.  And once in, no matter how diverse we may be, you are really in. In this stream, people talk about how “all the decisions used to be made on the front porch of Montreat.” That women and ethnic minorities were eventually allowed access, not because the rules changed the club, but because as elders came to become friends with those excluded, they realized in a very Peter and Cornelius kind of way that they had the Spirit and the gifts, too (and so, “WE” changed the rules, they would say) This stream is where people talk about debating theology and disagreeing deeply with one another during a meeting, and then going out to dinner to drink and smoke and laugh and cry together.  It’s where they tell stories of two pastors who opposed each other on every vote and every theological issue, but linked arm and arm to march for racial integration and preached at each other’s installation services. Where General Assemblies are mostly referred to by the conversations and restaurants and late night bull sessions and prayers sessions more than the motions on the floor.  It’s the stream of Montreat and Union and Louisville. In this stream the “Denomination” is really the “Constitution.” And, if this stream had its way, that’s all it would be, really.

But standing outside of, but still influenced by the North and South Streams is a third stream: The Western Stream. It’s what I call the Denomination as Brand Stream.  It’s the stream of entrepreneurs and frontiers. It is a stream that is made up of both Northerners and Southerners who left home and wanted to get some “space” but also of long-term Westerners who didn’t start as Presbyterians at all.  In the Western Stream, local iconic and innovative congregations and notable preachers are more important than seminaries or camps and conferences. It’s the Stream of Hollywood Pres, and University Pres, and Berkeley Pres. And the “Pres” part was the brand that proudly indicated to others that we were more educated, more socially involved, more inclusive, more open-minded and more Reformed than our other evangelical and even fundamentalist neighbors. The Pastors in this stream are those who went to places like Fuller Seminary and argued with Arminian friends about Calvin and infant baptism, the beauty of the “Great Ends of the Church” and the opening “theological” chapters of the (now former) Book of Order. In this stream, the DENOMINATION as BRAND was most important.  Our relationships are more with our friends from seminary, many of whom decided to go with other “brands.” They are both competitors and colleagues and we care more about the “Industry” than we do about the “Company.” (Sheesh, we may find ourselves working in their brand someday, too, y’know?) Churches are like local coffee shops who decided to become “Starbucks” and now the managers just hope the “Corporate Office” doesn’t do anything to make the customers mad. For the Western Stream, the Presbytery is the “Regional Brand Manager” and mostly where franchisees go, when they need permission from “Corporate” to do something new.  It’s where they pay their dues, check in with the higher ups and get the latest on what “Corporate” is doing or not doing that may help (or most likely hinder) our local operation. And mostly, local franchisees are worried these days that “they” (the corporate types) are making decisions that are hurting the brand and making our local work that much harder.  (To be sure there are some from the Southern Stream and many from the Northern Stream in the West, but they were more transplants, than that which flowed from the West itself.)

Those who know me, know that I am squarely out of the Western Stream.  But even that stream has been mingled with others so much that it can’t be clearly delineated. Most of our “iconic” pastors in the West themselves came out of the Northern Stream, and so most of the discussions have been a “North vs. West” approach to polity (Which “Movement”? “The Institution as Brand” and which regulations will we use to enforce our vision of the movement, institution and brand.) Indeed, both North and South started churches in the west so there is even within some presbyteries two vastly different mental models of what Presbytery should be at the same time.

When I took on this role as the MGB Moderator I found that the way people talked about “MGBs” was really different depending upon which stream they came from. 

• For those out of the North, MGBs are about expressing in a smaller way the unity amidst the diversity of a strong unified, democratic, institutional movement. Presbyteries are the GA in miniature.  Synods are another force for shaping the movement.
  
  
• For those out of the South, MGBs are about relationships, sharing in local ministry and making decisions about what is best for “our” churches.  Presbyteries are about the Members (mostly clergy!) and how they keep each other accountable and connected. Synods are about connecting in relationships for mission in an even broader way.
  
  
• For those out of the West, MGBs are about managing the brand.  Both about the way that the Corporate office manages the local “franchise” holders and the way the local entrepreneurs “manage up” to help Corporate make decisions that will help those “in the field” and “on the ground.” Synods are another source of resources for serving the congregations.

One more important point that has been triggered for me by reading a history of All-Black Governing Bodies  provided to our MGB Commission by Molly Casteel and the Committee on Representation leadership: Even within those three streams, there are myriads of other streams, mostly those “voices long silenced” who have been systemically ignored or overlooked. Influencing and shaping, often in the midst of great resistance those three larger streams have been these persistent “rivulets” feeding the other streams in vital and necessary ways. There is a rich history of Korean Presbyteries, Native American Presbyteries and especially historically African-American churches and governing bodies that offer still other ways of “being church”.  Could these rivulets, long-neglected by most, be yet another stream back to the spring that nourishes our way of being followers of Jesus in the world? 

Let me offer a few thoughts for consideration:

1. Considering our mental models raises awareness of the limitations of every mental model.  In short, no “mental model” is the spring itself.  It is just one of the many rivulets that ran down particular terrain and watered a particular landscape.   It wasn’t until I learned--for the very first time, I might add—of the different theological streams that made up the early American Presbyterianism and of the historically All-Black Middle Governing Bodies, and listened to a few of my colleagues talk about their personal experiences of Presbytery meetings and General Assemblies, that I began to look with fresh eyes at my own “Western” Perspective and begin to see its limitations—and also what it has to offer in a changing social and cultural landscape.
   
   
2. If we acknowledge that even within our Presbyterian tradition there has always been very different ways of “being Presbyterian”, we should give up any “one size fits all” or “one stream is the right stream” approach to “being a Presbytery” or “doing Synods”. With broad constitutional parameters that keep us clearly within a larger theological and covenantal consensus, we can allow different Presbyteries to shape and be shaped by the vast diversity of approaches.  With the passage of Nfog, we are now firmly and unapologetically “missional” in theological and constitutional conviction. If we allow mission--and not history or geography--to be our organizing principle, we now have a breadth of streams and approaches that we can draw from, learn from and adapt broadly for structuring our Presbyteries missionally.  
   
   
3. With the passage of 10-A and NFog, we have all become more “Southern.”   A number of my friends from the Southern stream have said to me about the most recently passed constitutional amendments: “You know, this is the way we did it before Reunion.”  And frankly, I think this is a good thing.  Being Presbyterian should be more about being in PRESBYTERIES than either an institution or a brand (and 10-A and Nfog point us back in that direction).  Local discernment, people in relationships making ordination decisions, less “top-down” institutional or brand directives, more room to make missional adjustments NOT as isolated congregations, but as “missional churches in covenant communities”.  The Presbytery is the center of our structure and churches (in mutual accountability as the Presbytery) can together discern their membership, their shared missional endeavors, their “branding” efforts, their institutional make up, their core values and their particular expression of the greater Church.  This “council” work of shared relationships, mutual accountability, discernment and support for the sake of the mission of Jesus Christ will take on distinctly different “flavors” but any constitutional changes should insure the broadest possible flexibility within some clear theological and constitutional parameters.
   
   
4. By acknowledging the legitimacy and effectiveness of these streams, can we allow ourselves to muse about the possibility of more streams from one common spring?  Could there be even more ways of being Presbyterian than we have thus far considered?  Shouldn’t we be open to a myriad of ways to be the church that flows from the same source of theology and governance? Shouldn’t the sheer numbers of ways of being historically Presbyterian inspire more creativity? Perhaps we can conceive of a number of streams that can go into the dry spiritual climes of our day in unique way.
   
   
5. Even as we start wading back up-stream to the spring, it allows us to ask: What are the unique attributes of the water?  In other words, what are the characteristic we share that come from the spring itself? For me, what has become most important as I go about this process of looking at Middle Councils is not the “streams”, but the spring.  I care less about arguing over which stream should be “the model” and am more committed than ever to the true wellspring of ecclesiological convictions that gave me waters to swim in and carried me far in my journey of faith:  
   
   Robust Reformed theology
   Governance of shared leadership by elders (both ruling and teaching),
   Constitutional unity that is both serious and subservient to the truly sacred text of the Scriptures.
   
   
6. Every stream has been shaped by the Christendom landscape that is clearly behind us. In the same way that a stream “flows” in relationship to its terrain, most of us haven’t really considered the degree to which our stream was shaped by Christendom assumptions.  So many of the ways we organize ourselves (Christianity as a “power” that could sit at the table with other “powers” as an equal; Churches as the center of society and communal life; Pastors as respected  leaders in a larger community; denominations themselves as brokers of influence; congregant loyalty to our institution or brand) are no longer true.  Every stream is suffering the grief of loss and facing the challenge of discovering new ways of flowing into a completely different landscape.  Even more, in a post-Christendom world where Christians are not and will likely never again be the dominant voice, all three streams have a LOT to learn from our sisters and brothers with a deep history of being marginalized. The history of All-Black Governing Bodies that I am reading should become required MISSIONAL reading for the whole church, in this regard.

As I read conversations online, talk with church members and leaders about all the changes about and work with our Commission to fulfill our charge “to develop models that reflect the roles of middle governing bodies in our polity and the changing context of our witness in the United States” I sense that very often we are simply talking past each other as we speak out of different streams with different assumptions.  Most of us have just been “carried along” and now find ourselves way down stream in a really different place and aren’t sure how to find our way back to a familiar landscape.  This disorientation leads to a yearning for the past and a clinging to the raft.  But, perhaps with self-reflection will come new ways of seeing and new ways of bringing the water of life to a parched world.  What would it look like, if the spring that flowed into the world for centuries --with its power from the Spirit and the wisdom and witness from the Scriptures—coursed in new streams today?

Questions to Consider 

(With thanks to Christine Chakoian, a pastor from a different stream than my own, who provided both the idea of discussion and the framing of the questions.) 

1. Which stream or streams do you see yourself in or coming from? Which stream has influenced you the most and why?
2. What are the essential elements of each stream?
3. What are the essential elements that flow from the ‘spring’ itself?  What are the unique attributes of our tradition and witness that have been common in every stream and should be not be overlooked?