Disclaimer: The opinions contained herein are my own and
are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the
Constitution or any other person or entity.
[Ed. note: Sorry for the delay and problems reposting.]
[Ed. note: Sorry for the delay and problems reposting.]
Number 2: Mission Affinity and "Porous"
Presbyteries
This is the second issue from the Mid Councils Commission to make the top ten list. In addition to the elimination of synods (number 4 on my list), the Commission is recommending a "season of experimentation" with creative models of presbytery formation and mission. Recommendation 6a of the Commission Report proposes temporary changes to our Constitution that would allow ten or more congregations within an existing synod and sharing a common mission purpose to be formed into a new presbytery. Recommendation 6b proposes temporary changes that would permit individual congregations in a presbytery to be transferred to another presbytery in the same or an adjoining synod with the consent of both presbyteries and the affected synods. The former might be called "mission affinity presbyteries" and the latter "porous presbyteries."
This is the second issue from the Mid Councils Commission to make the top ten list. In addition to the elimination of synods (number 4 on my list), the Commission is recommending a "season of experimentation" with creative models of presbytery formation and mission. Recommendation 6a of the Commission Report proposes temporary changes to our Constitution that would allow ten or more congregations within an existing synod and sharing a common mission purpose to be formed into a new presbytery. Recommendation 6b proposes temporary changes that would permit individual congregations in a presbytery to be transferred to another presbytery in the same or an adjoining synod with the consent of both presbyteries and the affected synods. The former might be called "mission affinity presbyteries" and the latter "porous presbyteries."
I have had the privilege of serving as a constitutional
resource to the Commission, and will serve as an ACC liaison to the Assembly
Committee considering the report. It is
not my intention in this post to advocate for or against the recommendations,
but rather to discuss their significance for the church and let the Assembly
make its own determination about the merits of the recommendations.
Recommendation 6 is the most provocative recommendation of
the Commission to fulfill its 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 and their relationships with other governing
bodies.” Previously, non-geographic
presbyteries have been permitted only for the purpose of addressing the needs
of racial ethnic communities.
Recommendation 6 would create the possibility of more flexible and fluid
presbyteries organized around mission, and would allow individual congregations
to be transferred to another presbytery for any reason deemed sufficient by the
affected presbyteries and synods.
I have heard concerns around the church that mission
affinity and porous presbyteries will really be an opportunity to realign
congregations into ideologically homogeneous presbyteries, where each can apply
their own interpretations of Scripture and the confessions regarding sexual
behavior in matters of membership, ordination, and discipline. While this
was NOT the intention of the Commission as I observed its work, the attraction
of this recommendation as a possible remedy to the division within our existing
geographic presbyteries is palpable, and the concerns are real. I know this to be true from conversations
within my own very polarized presbytery.
If Recommendation 6 is implemented merely as a means of maintaining the
larger unity of the church through what amounts to “schism-in-place,” then
neither the aims of the report nor the witness of the church to Christ’s
reconciling work will be served.
As a precaution against abuse, the season of experimentation incorporates some protections, most notably the requirement that the petitioning congregations present an acceptable mission plan, and that the presbytery of origin must concur in any decision of the experimental presbytery to divide, dissolve, or dismiss the congregation, or to sell, lease, or transfer real property. (This is intended to protect against so-called "wormhole" presbyteries to which a congregation might seek a transfer merely to be dismissed from the denomination on more favorable terms.)
Nevertheless, the creation of such presbyteries would have significant potential to affect our practice of governance. As Reformed Christians, we believe that the human tendency to sin and self-interest distorts our perception of the divine will. For that reason we need the perspectives of those who are different from us in order to correct our biases. The model of increasingly diverse councils in regular gradation assures us that we more reliably discern the divine will as we appeal to more inclusive (higher) councils. When those higher councils are formed not on the basis of increasing diversity but on affinity, the ability to correct our false perceptions is truncated, and we may even compound our misperceptions. Indeed, the more we rely on affinity models in governance, the more likely we are to create divisions, not only of theology or ideology, but of race, ethnicity, wealth, and power also. By contrast, racial ethnic non-geographic presbyteries were designed as temporary measures to enhance, not marginalize, the voice of minority communities in the larger church.
I for one wish that we could consider the mission possibilities of the overtures in a different denominational context than the one we currently have. Then we could honestly assess the merits of the proposals. Unfortunately, to many, the proposals currently have the ring of a "quick fix" to our chronically anxious denominational family system. Whether that drives the consideration of the Commission’s proposal remains to be seen.
Next: Number one! (No surprise there, I assure you.)
As a precaution against abuse, the season of experimentation incorporates some protections, most notably the requirement that the petitioning congregations present an acceptable mission plan, and that the presbytery of origin must concur in any decision of the experimental presbytery to divide, dissolve, or dismiss the congregation, or to sell, lease, or transfer real property. (This is intended to protect against so-called "wormhole" presbyteries to which a congregation might seek a transfer merely to be dismissed from the denomination on more favorable terms.)
Nevertheless, the creation of such presbyteries would have significant potential to affect our practice of governance. As Reformed Christians, we believe that the human tendency to sin and self-interest distorts our perception of the divine will. For that reason we need the perspectives of those who are different from us in order to correct our biases. The model of increasingly diverse councils in regular gradation assures us that we more reliably discern the divine will as we appeal to more inclusive (higher) councils. When those higher councils are formed not on the basis of increasing diversity but on affinity, the ability to correct our false perceptions is truncated, and we may even compound our misperceptions. Indeed, the more we rely on affinity models in governance, the more likely we are to create divisions, not only of theology or ideology, but of race, ethnicity, wealth, and power also. By contrast, racial ethnic non-geographic presbyteries were designed as temporary measures to enhance, not marginalize, the voice of minority communities in the larger church.
I for one wish that we could consider the mission possibilities of the overtures in a different denominational context than the one we currently have. Then we could honestly assess the merits of the proposals. Unfortunately, to many, the proposals currently have the ring of a "quick fix" to our chronically anxious denominational family system. Whether that drives the consideration of the Commission’s proposal remains to be seen.
Next: Number one! (No surprise there, I assure you.)
No comments:
Post a Comment