It Takes A Church...

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.