Google+
Affirming the recommendations of the Mid Councils Commission
Written by LOUIS B. WEEKS   
Saturday, 26 May 2012 09:31

{ OUTLOOK FORUM }

The Mid Councils Commission report and recommendations for “flattening” the hierarchy of the PC(USA) argue that young, emerging leaders will have more room to thrive and invent in the more fluid structures proposed. I agree.

There are two favorable perspectives — one historical and one biblical — that we may take on these recommendations.

 

The historical perspective

Not long ago, our family and friends were our neighbors. When children married, they usually located nearby. In that culture, friends, family and neighbors comprised congregations. Presbyteries usually formed according to accessibility, synods according to states. It made sense to locate “parishes” and “dioceses” by assuming geographical determination of affinity. Most Presbyterians never thought about the matter, even when they divided over social or theological issues.

Today we still have neighbors, and some are friends. But we drive a car or catch a plane to be with other friends and family members. We “Skype” across continents and oceans. The tech-savvy among us locate “friends” in social networks throughout the world. Studies show most Presbyterians pass several churches to “belong” to one, and most come from other professions of faith. Boundaries for congregations have changed radically, but presbyteries and synods still adhere to geographical proximity — with some accommodations for ethnic minorities. With nuances, the report makes this observation in “Geography Isn’t What It Used to Be” (p. 30).

The recommendations leave in place the vital ingredients of Presbyterian life — local congregations, relationships in presbyteries among churches that support and benefit from life together, and the connectional responsibilities of the General Assembly.

Granted, adopting the commission’s recommendations, especially the one for nongeographical presbyteries, will tax the creativity and flexibility of Presbyterian leaders. But reconceiving structures for our life together, already begun in the “New Form of Government,” may afford us new insights and possibilities for witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We may find faith development more fully attained among Presbyterian “friends and family” than among Presbyterian “neighbors.”

 

The biblical perspective

Are you not struck by how often we cite the mantra, “All things should be done decently and in order”? We hear that sound bite as the epitome of our Presbyterian culture. “Decently and in order” was just the second part of Paul’s admonition to the followers of Jesus in Corinth. Paul’s complex argument regarding church life offered two conclusions, just as the church came to a compromise at the Council in Jerusalem. Paul’s actual conclusion to Chapter 14 of I Corinthians reads: “So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order.”

Paul’s wisdom, and that of the early church leaders, suggests that “both-and,” rather than “either-or,” should inform our thinking about flattening the structures, allowing affinity-style presbyteries within limits and providing new resources for congregations and racial-ethnic ministries. Give permission, as we stick to some rules.

 

So…..

The recommendations may seem quite radical, until we look carefully at our context for witness and mission. Most Presbyterians care little for our connectional structures, except when they impinge on the sensibilities within a congregation. More radical changes already determine our faith development, our worship and work as congregations and our moral life together.

We should express our appreciation to the members of the commission and adopt their recommendations.

 

LOUIS B. WEEKS is president emeritus of Union Presbyterian Seminary.

 

 

Comments  

 
#4 P.W. Gregory 2012-06-08 07:57
From an aspect of polity, tradition, even reformed theology there are good and valid points to be made in retention of the current system and organizational matrix as it currently stands. And those who argue most for that, more than likely have a vested interest in its retention for practical reasons, either job, vocation, career, ideology identity, or just plain love the current trajectory of the church. Again in the Presbyterian DNA there' s that muscle memory for unity, purity and all under one structure in peace.

But in the world of flesh, blood, bone, emotions, feelings, and sad to say vested interest, fleshly and corrupt as they are, the real world which we live and pay bills, there are aspects practical, logical, process and operational to seek a new path or new structure going forward. That said I will remind all.

-pass or fail, the mid-council, non-geographic presbytery option before the church it will not stop the demographic, technological, theological reboot, retooling of the church. People and churches will leave on all sides with or without the permission of other bodies.

-pass or fail, it should be remembered it is a constitution, not a suicide pact. The church in its current form is dying and that process will continue. So we find the space and ability to live together, or not.

I would hope we are able to develop a new deal for the church.


There are many good and valid reasons to stay related to each other in a reconfigured structure, witness to others is one, and I hope and think once we scratch the surface of the theological/political/ideological baggage we carry. We can still sit down over coffee and have a decent conversation.
Quote
 
 
#3 William Blake Spencer 2012-06-05 13:27
What problems are we really trying to solve? One main problem continues to divide the church, the full inclusion of LGBT members and ministers and the affirmation of same sex marriage. I was a child when the church affirmed the full inclusion of women into ministry. I remember the first female elder in Conroe, Texas walking down the middle aisle with all the other suited men to serve communion for the first time. I recall ministers, members and churches leaving the denomination over the fact that women were fully affirmed and ordained. We didn't pause to consider presbyteries within presbyteries so as to allow some of our churches not to fully affirm and ordain women. If we didn't do it then, why are we considering it now? Perhaps I'm missing a bigger piece of the puzzle. But it seems to me the desire for some in the church to continue to deny fully participation of LGBT folk is very much part of the puzzle....and it offends me that we would create pockets in the church where LGBT children of God continue to be denied.

I'm all for using our imagination and loosing up some of our uptight decent and orderly ways....I'm all for skyping and texting and connecting in as many ways as we can....but to toss our polity up in the air so as to allow pockets of discrimination to exist....well I'm not for this at all.
Quote
 
 
#2 Paul Watermulder 2012-06-05 10:05
Louis Weeks and Tod Bolsinger speak both good sense and a highly respectable ecclesiology in their articles. For whose who are loathe to see the Church split "just because we can," the center road laid out in the MCC report brings wisdoma and hope. The Roman Catholics have long ago learned the lesson of keeping the "big tent" for all, with various "orders" beneath in which many find their prime identity. But they don't forsake mother church to do that. Had they had that wisdom 500 years ago we might all be able to still be one Church, with its uncommon and counter-cultural witness to unity in a fragmented world, and still maintain our distinctives. The center (the Cause of salvation and life in Jesus Christ) is meant to define us; not the periphery (with the many "causes" appealing to both left and right). This MCC report is our new, inspiring and timely chance to affirm the psalmist "how good and pleasant it is when brothers and sisters dwell togethewr in unity," and Jesus' prayer, "that all may be One."

Thank you, Tod, Louis, and all others who recognize that the Apostle Paul was right that the center must hold--fleeing congregations can now be invited to find new ways of life right here in the PCUSA, and others who might have become enamored of pushing exciting social agendae can recognize that first strengthening the church for renewed service to the Kingdom of God on earth is the invitation of the MCC report.
Quote
 
 
#1 Hart Edmonds 2012-05-30 12:37
The recommendations of the Mid-Council Commission are less than inspiring in my view. What problems are they really trying to solve? And I do wonder about neighbors both near and far being the affinity group for governing bodies. In his book, "The Big Sort", Bill Bishop analyzes the growing trend, actually it's a tsunami, by which Americans are grouping according to like-minded relationships. The Mid-Council recommendation is really just another example of the "big sort" in which we hope to gather with those who never utter a discouraging word of difference. I wonder about that in light of the Pentecost story this past Sunday in which diversity seems to be affirmed by God. Really Presbyterians can do better. Why not just declare each congregation its own presbytery. That way folks will never have to encounter differing opinions. But of course we'd still be behind the curve on that one too, as the spiritual but not religious have already figured out that congregations don't welcome difference.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh