It Takes A Church...

The Mid Council Report: It's about Healthy, Vital, Missional Congregations #PCUSA

Congregations.  healthy. vital. missional. congregations. 

Not congregationalism, but congregations in 'covenant communities' seeking together to discern the connectionalism that will enable them to thrive and further the reign of God in the local context.

Here is a word-picture of our guiding principles.

The whole report can be found here. 

More to come.  Much more.  We are very hopeful that a good conversation that could transform an entire denomination is just beginning.  Please come join us. 

 

Mid Council Report is now posted #PCUSA: The Guiding Principles

Our final report is now posted. John Vest and I will be blogging about it over the next few weeks trying to keep a good conversation going. The report is lengthy, but there is a 15 page executive summary within a 43 page section that lays out our argument for a "season of reflective experimentation" to bring genuine adaptive change to the denomination for the sake of missional congregations. In addition, there are full reports on the data we collected, the best models we discovered and the work of a racial ethnic task force. We hope this will encourage lots of good creative conversation.

http://oga.pcusa.org/media/uploads/oga/pdf/mgb_commission/mcc_final_report.pdf

To begin the discussion, it seems best to lay our cards on the table.  After a long season of listening to the church, when we moved to the 'experimenting' and 'discerning' phases, we developed this set of Guiding Principles.

• We live in a post-Christendom context that calls for continual re-consideration of our mission, our structures and our practices in order to be faithful to Christ and fruitful participants in God’s mission to the world.[i]  This reality is now undeniable.  We live in a new day, a new epoch.  It is as significant as it was for the Reformed tradition to be transported from Europe to America, and it requires no less a reconsideration and reformulation of our way of being the church.  And if we do not do so, the will eventually die.
• The missional congregation in a healthy, faithful covenant community is the center of the mission and faithful life of discipleship of Jesus Christ. Congregations are the “basic but insufficient” form of God’s mission in the world.  (G.10101) The Congregation is the basic form of mission, but for congregations to be faithful to their mission also requires them to be in covenant relationships with other congregations for shared authority, accountability, edification and missional support.
• Councils exist to serve the mission of the congregations in their local context.  In the words, of Louis Weeks, president emeritus of Union Theological Seminary, “The highest council in the church is really the Session. The rest of the governing bodies serve the Session.”  Presbyteries are “covenant communities of missional congregations”[ii] and the center of our corporate life, governance and mission together connecting congregations to each other and the larger witness of the Church.  It is a “collegial bishop” charged with preparing and ordering the ministry of teaching elders, it is a covenant community of missional congregations, it is the “balcony” that offers a broader perspective to congregational leaders so that they might serve wisely and well in their specific contexts.
• This report and our recommendations are committed to refocusing the mid council structure on one goal: serving fruitful and faithful missional congregations. To that end, our structures, especially our mid council structures, must engage and serve the mission of God in the world through missional congregations and partnerships, not our institutional or denominational concerns.
• There is no “one size fits all model”. Ecclesial structure follows missional function and is always marked by a commitment to being covenantal and contextual. The best ecclesiastical structures are discerned by those who live in it together.  They will be contained within the frame of our shared constitutional life, but those structural changes should ordinarily come from the local context, not the “national office”. The new Form of Government and the passage of Amendment 10A indicate a shift of authority to the local contexts for discerning the shape of a mission and we want to affirm and build upon that shift.
• Our structures must serve and support healthy, shared, spiritual and collaborative leadership between ruling and teaching elders.
   
• This report continues, builds upon and lives into the decisions made by the church to accept a new Form of Government and place the discernment of fitness for ordination on local churches and presbyteries.  Our proposal is a next step in a trajectory that we believe will result in further collaborative creativity by the whole church in every context.
  
• We envision a “big canvas with a clear frame”.  While remaining securely within the “Foundations” of our theological and governance tradition, we call the church to create the conditions to energize collaborative creativity, missional innovation and relational accountability with permission for many different models of middle councils to emerge that will foster the vitality and fruitfulness of missional congregations. 

---

[i] Guder, “The Presbytery as Missional Context”, p.3 “Perhaps the most pervasive and powerful reduction made in the course of the western church’s gradual establishment, as it became more dominant in its social and political context, and as the assumption took hold that everyone born and reared in this territories was Christian, was the fact that the essential character of mission in the biblical sense gradually faded away.  Mission is not needed if everyone is already a Christian!...The contemporary exploration of the church’s essentially missional vocation challenges unquestioned attitudes formed over centuries that the church is to be defined more in terms of its maintenance than its mission.  What is meant is, of course, the concern for the maintenance of the church as an institution.  That concern turns the church inward, centers its attention upon itself and its members, upon its survival and their religious needs.  The institutional inwardness of western church contradicts the clearly missional calling of the church in the New Testament defined by Jesus on the Mount of the Ascension: ‘You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8).  Thus, Newbigin’s question can be paraphrased: How does the church truly regain its understanding of itself as called and sent, remembering that the term mission means, in fact, “sending” (see John 20:21)?  How does the church move beyond the idea that Christian identity is basically a geographical or cultural or organizational concept? (emphasis ours).

[ii] This definition is from Darrell Guder, “The Presbytery as Missional Context”.

 

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.

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.

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?

The Misunderstanding of the Presbytery #Mgbcomm

“Where two or more churches are gathered in mission together, that IS the presbytery.”   From the Presbytery of Los Ranchos Vision for Mission 

Here is the concept that I wish to put before the church in this musing:

The covenant relationship of congregations IS the presbytery. The “essence” of the presbytery is nothing more and nothing less than the covenant relationship of the congregations. And whatever our structure looks like, it has to express this essence.

Over a half century ago, Emil Brunner wrote, The Misunderstanding of the Church.  In a book designed to critique both “protestant individualism” and “catholic collectivism”, he writes, pointedly, “The body of Christ is nothing other than the fellowship of persons.” For Brunner, this fellowship is a reflection of the Triune God whose essence (yes, that’s a Trinitarian technical term) is “agape—that love which the Son brings to mankind from the Father.”  And because the essence of the church is nothing less than the essence of God, Brunner declares, “The fellowship of Christians is just as much an end in itself as is their fellowship with Christ.”

(“Just as much an end in itself”… really?  What do you think of that?  Is your local worshipping congregation “just as much an end of itself” as your relationship with Christ?  Really?)  

For Brunner, citing John 17 mostly, “fellowship”, i.e. relationship and love, is the “essence of the church” and those of us who reduce it to either a local expression of a larger corporate institution or a shared locale for individual spiritual pursuits misunderstand the church as much as a person who misunderstands Jesus to be nothing more than the patron saint of a worldly system or my own personal pocket-sized totem.

Brunner’s book, written in 1953, has been hugely influential in my life.  Exploring his claims led me to write a PhD dissertation which later was edited into my book, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God Transforms Lives. Over the past year, as I have moderated the Middle Governing Body Commission, I have found myself in one conversation after another that has brought me back to Brunner’s Misunderstanding.  Today, I believe that many Presbyterians, including myself actually, have lived with a deep misunderstanding of the Presbytery as well 

For most of us, the mental model of the Presbyterian Congregation is that of “corporate franchise” of the “National Organization” called PCUSA that is administered by the “Regional Office” called Presbytery. And this misunderstanding stems from not clearly grasping the “essence” of either the church or the presbytery.

In other words, if the essence of the congregation is the fellowship of believers who are joined in love for the mission of God in its local context, then isn’t the essence of the presbytery nothing more and nothing less than the covenant relationship of those congregations, (which Darrell Guder helpfully defines as “Covenant Communities of Missional Congregations)? And if this is so, so what?

If the essence of the Presbytery IS the covenant relationship of the churches that are joined together for missional ends, then what practices and possibilities arise from this re-understanding? 

If we misunderstand Presbyteries as primarily institutional, we assume the actives of presbyteries are primarily regulatory. But, if we can recapture the essence of a presbytery as the covenant relationship of congregations, we can begin to also re-think the primacy of a regulatory frame for presbytery life.  What would happen if congregational relationship, rather than institutional “regulation” was that which bound us together?  What would it look like, what would change, how would we reconfigure our presbytery life if the very essence of it was relational, communal and covenantal?

And perhaps, an even more personal and poignant question to ponder: If the Presbytery IS the relationships of missional congregations  (and not the budget, the programs, the projects, the staff, or the office) then what is the condition of your Presbytery and what do you need from our Commission to live out the essence of this thing that gives us our name?  What do you need to further the health and faithfulness of your “covenant community”?  

My Presbyterian friends, the essence of our life together is relational, not regulatory.  What can we do together to envision and enact this essence?

A Big Dance under a Big Tent #mgbcomm

A group of young children are learning ballet.  In the early stages, “recitals” are little more than a line of “dancers” standing in place tapping out the steps to the count of the music.  They are inexperienced and awkward, fearful and unsteady.  If they try to move too much, they could even fall off the stage and get hurt.  So they stand in the center, restricted to a tiny area; they barely move and they barely dance.  It’s touching when they are young – it makes parents tear up with pride and joy. Cameras whirr. But everyone understands that this is just a starting place. Some day these dancers will leap and move with grace and precision over the whole stage. They will add other dances to their repertoire.  And then with maturity and the grace that comes with practice and discipline, they will move expressively and confidently, with safety, right to the edge of the stage and over the whole stage floor.  

 As “The Big Tent” is about to get underway, Commissioners from the Middle Governing Body Commission are gearing up to continue our work of listening and engaging the church in conversation about “(developing) models that reflect the roles of middle governing bodies in our polity and the changing context of our witness in the United States and their relationships with other governing bodies.” One of the metaphors that we have been using in the Commission is this one that came to us via Los Ranchos Presbytery’s Presbytery Pastor, Steve Yamaguchi.  In his description of the work of the Odyssey Group that set out the new Vision for Mission Design of the Los Ranchos Presbyter, Steve described his goal of having the presbytery become more and more like a big dance stage with trained, disciplined dancers and clear, safe boundary markers so that “everyone can learn to dance the whole floor with joy and creativity, with imagination and expression.”

  Envisioning Presbyteries as a “stage” for beautiful collaboration has captured our attention.  To think of the relationships between churches and leaders within a presbytery as dance partners where they engage in ministry together with freedom, passion, abandon, risk and creativity without fear of falling off the stage has us thinking:  

 

• How much space for freedom can we build into our system? 
• What kind of boundaries are necessary? 
• How big and flexible can we make the space? 
• And especially, how much discernment can we entrust to the dancers (i.e. churches and their leaders) about the kinds of dances they want to perform and partners with whom they want to dance?  

 As our Commissioners head out to Big Tent, a big question that we want the church to help us think through:

 What would it take for our Presbyteries to become large, free, open dance floors where ministry and mission were safe enough to be responsive to the Spirit in increasingly more creative ways? 

And since part of our charge is to bring to the 220th General Assembly any recommended changes to the Book of Order, what would be ONE change to the “boundary lines” (i.e. the constitution) that would make it possible for more dancing and less staying in place?

 Of course, the real answer isn’t in either floors or boundary markers but something else (Which I’ll write on next), but without floors and boundary markers, there would be no space to dance? 

 So, Big Tent what does a Big Dance Floor look like to you? 

 (We would really like to know.)

Walls, Fences and Necessary Things

“So, Charlie, when are we going fix that wall that’s falling down?”

Charlie heard the voice from the yard next door. Frankly, he hadn’t noticed that the wall was falling down.  Charlie is not the kind of guy who notices these things. But, Jim, the next door neighbor most definitely does. 

They’d lived next door to each other for seven years.  But until the wall fell down they didn’t know each other. 

When Charlie saw that indeed the wall was in need of serious repair, he assumed that meant that he and Jim would split the cost to pay someone to fix.  You know, be neighborly and cooperative. Jim had other ideas. 

The next week he was out digging up the foundation of the wall and soon, if nothing else besides guilt, Charlie joined in.  Together they replaced that wall with a fence.   Once that fence was finished, Jim noted that the rest of Charlie’s walls and fences were even worse than the one that had crumbled, and he offered to help him put up a new fence all the way around his property.  Charlie, who as a pastor and musician is not exactly skilled at this particular kind of labor, readily agreed.

So Charlie and Jim built some fences together.  And a friendship was born.  As they worked together to make good fences, they found out all kinds of things about each other.  Jim is a retired park ranger and former Vietnam vet.  He can cook as good a paella as he is handy with tools.  He knows a thing or two about good wine and classical music and great literature.  He grew up near the Mokulmne Wilderness in California and loves to backpack.  Jim and Charlie started going on hiking trips together.   Jim’s not particularly religious at all, but when his wife died, he asked Charlie to conduct the funeral. 

Now when Jim is on vacation, Charlie watches his house.  When Jim mows his lawn he also mows Charlie’s.  For seven years they were just neighbors who didn’t know each other.  Then the wall fell down and they built a fence.  In building the fence, they built a friendship. 

Recently, Jim suggested that they put a gate in the fence.  Which of course, you couldn’t do with a wall.  And they wouldn’t have even considered before they built that fence together.  

Wendell Berry wrote, “Community will start again when people begin to do necessary things for each other again.”

As I think about all that is happening around the Presbyterian Church these days and look through the lens of my position on the Middle Governing Body Commission, I have a hunch that there is something for us in this story of wall, fences, gates and friendship and necessary things.