It Takes A Church...

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #3

In this third post from the MGB Comm Observation Deck, I want to make an observation about our church’s theological conversation.  It’s an observation about a technical term that is becoming both very helpful and at times quite frustrating.  It’s the word, “missional”. 

From the New Form of Government to the PCUSA Fellowship Letter, from the vision statement of almost every Presbytery to the video podcasts from our Stated Clerk, from Presbyterian Global Fellowship to the NEXT conference, everybody is talking about the church being “missional”.  But this is our third observation:

Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

To recap what we have observed from the “balcony” so far:

Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.
Observation #2:  Almost everybody agrees that something has to change.

And now, Observation #3: Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

While the idea of the “missional church” is very engaging and at the center of the church conversation in very interesting and inspiring ways, there is not widespread agreement on what “missional” means.  For some it is a way of saying “global mission” with a catchy new label. For others it is a way of saying something about “urban ministry” or “local mission” (instead of just writing checks to missionaries), for others it’s a reframe for service projects in local communities. For, still others, it seems like the newest fad or catchy theological trend. 

So while, we (mostly) all believe the church is to be missional, but we don’t all agree, or maybe even understand what we are saying by using the term. Indeed, a significant part of the “missional conversation” is a conversation about definition.   Since this is an observation, I won’t offer my own, but instead want to suggest two very basic “missional” concepts where I believe we do have (or at least should have) widespread agreement  And allow me to do so by way of quotation and stipulation.

First quotation:
“Mission determines the forms and structures needed for the church to do its work.” Nfog G-3.0106
 “The congregation is the church engaged in mission in its particular context…The congregation is the basic form of the church, but it is not of itself a sufficient form of the church.” Nfog G-1.0101

In a court of law, when two sides want to agree on a fact and move on to another point of contention, they make a stipulation. They concede one point to address another.  And in essence I want to ask:  Can we agree on these two points so that we may begin to move on to others that are in need of further consideration?

•    Mission determines structure.
•    The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.

In one sense these points should be easy to agree upon.  They are from our New Form of Government and both express thoughts from the current Form of Government.  But before assuming that we are all in agreement (the Nfog is, of course, up for debate), I’d like to ask:

First, do we agree that MISSION, specifically, the Mission of the Triune God expressed for the whole world determines the forms and structures of the church? It’s first God’s mission, not ours.  It’s first God’s mission, not the church’s, not the denomination, not even the individual Christian.  The Mission of God revealed in Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to redeem and renew all of creation determines our structure.  Can we agree on that?  Do we also agree that when the MGB Commission considers “models” from Middle Governing bodies, the primary consideration should be whether the proposed structures further the Mission of the Triune God in the world today and not any political, personal, institutional, traditional, historical, organizational, economic or societal aim?  Can we stipulate this?

Second, do we agree that the congregation IS the basic form of mission, and thereby the basic form of church?  Do we agree that the congregation in its particular contexts is the foundational and primary place where the MISSION of GOD engages the need of the world?  The congregation (and not the denomination nor the individual) is the foundational, first line engagement of God to the world. 

Third, do we also agree at the very same time, that the congregation in and of itself is NOT sufficient as the church?  That in order to fulfill the mission of God, we need more than congregations?  We need forms and structures of SOME kind beyond the congregation. We need them to witness to the unity of the church, to engage in mission in ways that are beyond the scope or ability of a local congregation, for discernment, for learning, for leadership development and calling and perhaps a few other things that support and strengthen the mission of the congregation.

So, once again, here are the first two stipulations: What do you think?
•    Mission determines structure.
•    The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.

Now, frankly, I want to caution us all not to agree too quickly (Oh, who am I kidding? We are Presbyterians.  We don’t agree quickly on anything!).  And this is where we need some good thoughtful theological critique. This is where I want to pause and take an extra moment or two.  Do we all realize what we would be stipulating?

• As I see it, we would be agreeing that any structure or form of church BEYOND the congregation must serve and further the mission of the congregation in a local, particular context.  The congregation does not serve the mission of the presbytery, the synod or the denomination, but the reverse.  Indeed, the mission of GOD in the world is discerned and expressed in and through the congregation.  And any structure that we use beyond the congregation must be understood by its value to the congregation.
• As I see it, we would also be agreeing that neither the denomination nor the individual is the basic expression of mission.  The local covenant community of Jesus-followers living as a witness in its context (however that is structured) is primary.  Now, to be sure, individual believers are called to live and serve the mission of Jesus. But the cornerstone of missional thinking is the primacy of the community as the agent of Christ’s mission for world. 
  
  Do we agree that the congregation does NOT exist for the “mission” of its individual members but that individual Christians and the denominational structures are called to live out their callings within a local context and as part of the body of Christ in mission together?  Can we agree on this, too? (This one may be more difficult for most of us, so steeped in the individualism of enlightenment modernity or expressive post-modernity….But I have written a bit about this before--shameless plug here.) 

Okay, another observation, two stipulations and hopefully a more robust conversation.  What do you think?

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #2

From now until our next Middle Governing Body Commission meeting (in Seattle, May 31-June 2), I’ll be offering a weekly blog post on of reflections from the “Observation Deck”.  It is our Commission’s invitation to join us “on the balcony” as we try to gain a clearer understanding of the movements of the Spirit that are taking shape in the life of the church in these changing times.   My intention is not to give a final word, but a first word.  To offer one perspective about what we are learning as we go and stimulate wide-spread reflection while we are in the process of conducting consultations, engaging in conversations, gathering survey data and just “listening in” on the discussions that are swirling through the blogosphere, twitter feeds, our various gatherings and amidst our friendships.

Observation #1 was: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.  The way we go about doing stuff is every bit as important as the stuff we do.  And for us on the MGB Commission, that observation has shaped our actions.  We are committed to being first a listening commission, before we even consider “models” to discuss or recommendations to offer the larger church.

While most of the responses to my first observation were appreciative, there is an undercurrent of restlessness also.  Some are deeply concerned that both the Commission and even more importantly, the church as a whole are so committed to process that we won’t actual accomplish anything.  As one of my pastor friends once said to me, “We Presbyterians are so good at talking about things, after a while we convince ourselves we have actually done something.”  Amen.

Which leads to the Observation #2:  Almost everybody agrees that something has to change. 

Conferences are forming about what to do NEXT, Middle Governing Bodies are running out of money, we have closed 1000 churches since Reunion in 1983, and there is a “For Lease” sign for empty office space in front of the national office in Louisville.  From the charge to the Commission passed by the GA that begs the question about our historical structures relevance in a changing cultural context, to the National Council of Churches’ Ph.D. researcher who offered the Commission reams of statistical data about widespread mainline church decline, to Executive Presbyters speaking from the “field”, to church officials who challenged us to “Think Big” and “Be Bold”, to the PCUSA’s own Research Team, to a group of pastors who have now famously declared the church “deathly ill”, there is a widespread agreement that the PCUSA cannot face the future with the assumptions and structures of (at least the recent) past.  (More on that in a future Observation.)

Now to be clear, there is nothing near a consensus on either the causes of our current state or the solutions for our particular situation, but it seems to me that this much is pretty much worthy of a stipulation:  The mainline church in America is in decline—and urgent, significant, even radical, changes are needed.

“The American Protestant church is in a wholesale struggle to understand what it means to be a denomination,” Dr. Eileen Lindner told the Commission in November.  Joe Small the retiring Director of the PC (USA) Office of Theology, Worship and Education Ministies  added, “Our system is broken. Everyone knows that. It has been broken for some time.” 

What is now more clear is that the struggle cuts across theological lines, too.  While it is arguable that during the last decades of the last century, that church decline in membership, worship attendance and financial support were more significant in more theologically liberal churches, it is now clear that even our largest and most conservative churches are themselves experiencing widespread decline, also (even the Baptists!)   No matter where we stand on any issue, no matter what explanations or rationales we offer to make sense of it, no matter how much we may disagree, even vehemently with the interpretations of "how we got here", and no matter if we even think this is a concerning thing at all--this is a common reality we all share.

When I took on the role of being the Moderator of the Middle Governing Body Commission, I wanted to assure the church that the Commission (or at least the Moderator) understood the limits of its power.  I publicly assured those who were listening that we were going to be a listening, experimenting and discerning Commission, and that we were looking for “safe, modest experiments” to consider and offer to the church.  Since then I have been hearing mostly from those who are more afraid that we will be too safe, too modest, and could squander the opportunity to bring the change that is urgently needed. 

Frankly, for us on the Commission, this urging has been good for us.  Our biggest concern in this second observation is the first word: “Almost”.  “Almost everybody agrees that something has to change.”  Because we Presbyterians really prefer consensus (thousands of Roberts’ Rules of Order ‘majority rules’ votes notwithstanding!), we have a tendency to resist change until it’s almost a foregone conclusion and too little too late.  Our lingering back-of-the-brain concern has been that we would just be another commission who offers the church recommendations that are abruptly  rejected wholesale out of fear of the unknown.

But as we have begun to listen to the church, as we have learned about a number of Presbyteries and Synods that are already changing to become more vital for mission in their local context, as conversations begin to come to the table across traditional dividing lines, as leaders begin to cautiously gather to find common ground and develop greater trust so that we may seek the Spirit’s leading in the uncertainty of an unknown future, it seems that maybe we have reached a tipping point: We may not know what the future holds, but it’s high time we figure out how to go there.

Pastors On Facebook: Get Real

Being real is, like, the number one job qualification today - not something to be avoided at all cost. 

Does it take maturity to be friends with people in your congregation? Yes. But if you're not mature enough to manage it, maybe you should think about another line of work. Will it demand maturity from people in your congregation? Yes. But few things are as gross about church life than the patronizing tendency of pastors to treat their parishioners like children. Are there dangers? Yes. The main danger is that you will be a different person because of the relationships you develop. If you let people see you - really see you - and give them permission to call you out when you're being stupid, scared, or self-centered - you'll be transformed by the experience. Of course, you'll also be a better pastor. And you'll help create a culture where everybody is expected and encouraged to grow spiritually, emotionally, and every which way.

via www.renewablechurch.com

An interesting post about the maturity to be authentic and the challenge of living in a very public world. And frankly, this applies to everyone, not just pastors, I'd say

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #1

Note:  Amongst the number of hats that I am wearing these days, one of them is as Moderator of a Commission that is consulting with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and seeking to develop models and bring recommendations to the next General Assembly regarding the way our Middle Governing Bodies (i.e. Presbyteries and Synods) could be organized to address the challenges of a changing world.  This blog post begins what will be a recurring series on the things that we are learning through this Commission work.

The principles of our Presbyterian Polity trust in the fundamental work of the Spirit of Christ expressed when presbyters are gathered together in governing bodies. But how are those governing bodies best organized to be responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship? Are our historical structures the best platforms for carrying our mission into the future? Where can the General Assembly carefully discern the wider scope of middle governing body form, function, and mission?  From the Rationale for the Charge to the Middle Governing Body Commission

It’s been said that in order to truly understand and bring genuine adaptive change, leaders must be committed to both “listening on the dance floor” and “looking from the balcony.”  For the better part of the past four months, the Middle Governing Body Commission has been out on the dance floor with our ears to the ground listening for the voice of the Spirit amidst the whirl and swirl of PCUSA life.  And we are certainly not finished. 

If anything, we realize that our listening is just beginning.  And even though we are only a short bit into the dance, we wanted to stop the music for a bit and invite you all to take a breather on the balcony with us to see what we are beginning to see.  Over the next few weeks, I’ll offer some of our nascent, emerging, tentative, speculative, cautious, written-in-pencil, “rough-draft” observations (is that enough disclaimers? :) ). These are some of the patterns, concepts and ideas that are already becoming apparent, at least to us, and we think are worthy of consideration and critique by the larger church.  Consider it a moment of looking out over the church from an “Observation Deck” and my attempt to point out something so that we can ask you if you are seeing the same thing that we are. 

Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.

Well, if not “the” product, “a” (hugely significant) product.  We Presbyterians are process people.  As much as we want to get to a good result, we want to get there in a good way that is consistent with our convictions.  We want to honor our history, consider our covenants and take seriously the challenges of a changing world before we start making changes.  But especially, we want every voice to be heard.  We believe that every perspective must be presented.  Our charge for the MGB Commission even requires us to do so and we have accepted that charge most cheerfully. 

This point was only emphasized by the serendipity (irony?, divine synchronicity? ) that at the very time that Commissioners were making their way through the snow storms that covered our country, there was a whirlwind of conversation around the recent letter that came from a group of large church pastors.  The perception that any group of pastors would initiate a conversation without collaborating across the church or within their own presbyteries has led to significant criticism and widespread rejection of their ideas even before the proverbial “ink on the page” is dry.  Their process has clearly hampered their product.  At the same time, the response letter from our Louisville leaders was widely praised because they not only acknowledged the issues raised by the pastors, but also called on the whole church to join (not reject!) the conversation. 

For me, as the Moderator of the #MGBComm (as we are known in the Twitter world), charged with bringing to the next General Assembly  “models” for organizing governing bodies that are “responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship,” the most important first observation is that healthy change begins with listening.  (This is a good discipline for me, because, well frankly, I am a much better talker than listener most of the time.)  When I listen well on the dance floor, I begin to see things from the balcony that I would otherwise miss.

I was invited to the Large Church Pastors gathering in Phoenix to make a presentation on the MGB Commission.  For 8 minutes or so, I talked about the necessary collaboration that is required for a ‘new model’ to come before our Commission (beginning with working within our respective presbyteries and synods and being consistent with our current Constitution).  For the rest of the 23 hours and 52 minutes of the gathering, I mostly just listened.  And while the Commission really didn't spend much time on it (we are only charged with responding to overtures that come from MGBs and go through the Stated Clerks office), I did reflect with them a little bit on some lessons I am learning about the importance of process 

Frankly, in Phoenix, I  heard a desire for a much better ‘process’--a more open, humble and collaborative process--than was communicated in the letter.  There were repeated exhortations for a wider conversation across the whole spectrum of the church.  The four “points” of their letter were never communicated as “steps to schism” but as “streams of strategies”.  (And those four streams represented a huge diversity of opinion even within the narrow social strata in the room.) While not all, certainly the largest group of pastors wanted to work for good changes within the current denomination.

I share this because the product of the meeting (the letter) in my opinion, was not consistent with the process I observed.  And the responses to the letter have become part of what I believe is both a healthy response of critique and engagement and also a sad reflection of our history of pain and anger that can keep us locked in patterns of reactivity instead of more thoughtful response.  (Once again, I want to hold up the example of our Moderator, Stated Clerk and GAMC Executive Director as a model that I personally hope to follow.)

 Our Process is (at least a good part) of our Product.  We need to hear even more voices.  If we are going to part of bringing change to our church it is going to have to be the change that comes from the WHOLE church. 

I have already registered for the NEXT church gathering to hear from another group that is looking for ways to address the challenges of a changing world.  Our Commission is fanning out across the country to have face-to-face consultations with over two dozen groups. We are asking the Committee on Representation to help us schedule consultation calls with every constituency that we might otherwise overlook.  Our Commission has a strategy for consulting with every synod, every Presbytery, every Session, indeed, every Presbyterian.  We will have consultations and conference calls, surveys and online discussion groups.  We will be at the Big Tent and Board of Pension gatherings.  We will meet with EPs and Synod Execs and the OGA and the GAMC.  We have a team looking for models that are already bearing fruit and offering us a glimpse into a hopeful future.  We are even talking to other denominations that are facing the same challenges. 

We have a website that has all of the minutes, presentations and reading material that we are using.  We have a Facebook Discussion Group, We are “tweeting” our way through this process (@mgbcomm, #mgbcomm) and invite anyone and everyone to chime in, feed-back, suggest, probe, question, and critique… and work within your presbyteries and synods to come up with models for greater missional effectiveness in a changing world (so that we can all learn from them!)

And in case any of you still feel as if you aren’t sure how to get your voice heard, here is my personal contact information: tod@scpres.org.(You can also “friend” me on Facebook or “Follow” me on Twitter @todbol) 

The value of any product that we bring to the next General Assembly is absolutely dependent on a much larger, listening, process.  

That’s our first observation.  (With more to come.)  What’s yours?

interesting Article in the Wall Street Journal about "missing Presbyterians. Serendipitous as I am meeting with the #Mgbcomm http://tinyurl.com/47yknqn