Mapping a Non-Geographic
Future:
Consequences (Intended and
Unintended) of the PC(USA) Mid Council Commission Recommendations
Overview
Church governance and the nuances of
polity are low on the list of topics of interest to most of us. The
portion of officer training that involves the Book of Order and our system of
governance is often met with rolled eyes and expressions of sheer dread.
It is no wonder then that my informal survey of a group of PCUSA elders (both
ruling and teaching) revealed that not many even knew that there was a
Mid-Council Commission much less what it is doing.
As a self-described polity nerd I have followed their work with interest.
The task before them was monumental and they have handled the vast majority of
their work with both grace and courage. Some of the ideas put forth
represent a thoughtful new direction for the church and will address pressing
issues of adaptation of denominational structures to rapidly changing cultures
both within and without the Church. Hopefully they will help us remain
decent and in order while doing a little more Spirit-led reforming at the same
time.
If the presbyteries are charged with
casting an up or down vote on the MCC Report as it now stands, I would be
forced to vote “no” despite its many good proposals. My support for most of the report’s ideas and
proposals cannot overcome the overwhelming danger of its central proposal for Non-Geographic
Presbyteries based on criteria other than racial/ethnic concerns. This fatal flaw dooms the rest of the report
and portends great difficulties for the PC(USA) both in our practical governance
and in our theological witness in the world.
The
Non-Geographic Option
At its spring meeting in Dallas, the
Mid-Council Commission put the final touches on their report to the General
Assembly this summer. By a vote of 15-5, the commission voted to approve
“provisional Non-Geographic Presbyteries” during a season of discernment to
last through 2021. This provision is a Pandora’s Box that cannot be
closed once it is open and it will have a chilling effect on the church.
The idea of Non-Geographic Presbyteries is not new. Provisions for Non-Geographic
Presbyteries have been made to aid in the transition of some racial-ethnic
congregations into the predominantly anglo PC(USA). This model allowed
for a time of cultural learning as the larger church grew to not only include
but incorporate the wisdom of a particular community Sometimes this has worked.
Others it has not. The proposal from the Mid-Council Commission is
entirely different from the previous non-geographic presbytery model.
The presbyteries envisioned by the commission would be self-selected bodies
made up of congregations that are of like mind on particular issues. The
MCC proposes amending the Book of Order to allow,
“Approving
the formation of provisional non‐geographic presbyteries for particular
missional purposes, upon petition of ten or more congregations and ten or more
teaching elders within its bounds, with the concurrence of existing
presbyteries.” MCC Recommendation #6
The language of the proposal is
sufficiently vague that these presbyteries can be formed for just about any
reason that can be articulated. The
rationale for this, according to proponents, is to hit the “reset” button and
allow the church to move forward. These new bodies would jettison
arbitrary geographical boundaries in favor of ideological and theological
boundaries.
Proponents argue that these bodies will allow the church to move past its
current crisis and put focus on shared mission. The provision of a sunset
clause would require that these new presbyteries will have to show how this
model is better or the system will revert. In the meantime, 10 churches
and 10 teaching elders are all it takes to propose a new presbytery.
Dangers for
the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church
The provision of these Non-Geographic
Presbyteries is not limited to mission. They
are not bodies bound by the provisions of their “particular missional purposes.” These are presbyteries; councils of the
church with all the rights and privileges of a presbytery save the authority
over property.[1] This means that these Non-Geographic
Presbyteries, which are not limited in number or scope, will have the authority
to:
·
Oversee the calling, dismissing and discipline
of Teaching Elders
·
Interpret (insofar as their power allows) the
requirements of ministry to be imposed on candidates
·
Determine the suitability of candidates for
ordination as Teaching Elders
·
Oversee judicial process among their constituent
churches
·
Even if they are composed of the minimum 10
Teaching Elders and 10 Ruling Elders they will have the right to send two
commissioners to meetings of the General Assembly; to propose overtures to the
General Assembly; to vote on business forwarded by the General Assembly for the
concurrence of the presbyteries
The
model proposed by the MCC is rooted in their conviction that the church must
move into an era of trust if we are to emerge from the last decades of both
theological and ecclesiastical difficulty.
The MCC is to be applauded for their vision of returning to an era of
trust in the church.
That we have not yet reached that new
era of trust is evident from the business before the General Assembly. Not yet a year since the changes to the Book
of Order took effect, no less than a dozen overtures seek to undo what the
presbyteries did over the last two years.
Though there is increasing rhetoric in the church for moving on and
moving forward, the prevailing culture is still one of seeking legislative
majorities in order to impose particular theological and ethical visions on the
whole church. The proposal for Non-Geographic
Presbyteries begs abuse in a church culture that is unpracticed in both
legislative and rhetorical restraint.
If we are honest with ourselves, can
we really say that there will be only 173 presbyteries for the 221st
or 222nd General Assemblies?
What will become of the Peace, Unity and Purity of the church if we find
ourselves mired in an arms race of presbytery creation in order to ensure
favorable outcomes on legislative issues?
Or to “stack the deck” with theologically sympathetic votes on the new
regional judicial commissions?
It is essential that we move into
the era of trust and reconciliation anticipated by the MCC report. This measure, though perhaps well
intentioned, will do great violence to any hope for that future and will make
the present state of the church more perilous than it already is.
Dangers for
the Theological Witness of the Church
What will this church look like to
an outsider looking in? What public face
will our ecclesiological witness take under this proposal? The only metaphor for this sort of church I
can imagine is a middle school lunch room where the cool kids sit together and
intentionally exclude those they deem do not measure up.
Our current system of presbytery boundaries is generally theologically
neutral. The Arkansas/Missouri state line (which forms the northern
boundary of my presbytery) is uninterested in how a church on either side of
the line thinks about a certain issue. It provides a functional
administrative boundary without drawing lines of value between
congregations. The proposal from the Mid-Council Commission will draw
such lines. Where once, congregations that may not agree on every issue
were called to community and to the effort to find shared mission that would
transcend their differences, our presbyteries would now declare those differences
absolute and insurmountable requiring the administrative separation of once
partner churches.
Adoption of this part of the Mid-Council Commission’s recommendations will
declare to the world that the way to bridge differences, even deeply held
theological differences, is to walk away and stop engaging.
Adoption of this plan will declare to the world that the body of Christ is so
fragile as to be unable to withstand a season of disagreement.
Adoption of this plan will declare to the world that although we preach
reconciliation we choose to practice division.
Unlike other institutions, the church
does not have the luxury of defining its own mission or institutional
calling. Christ calls us to mission and
that mission defines our institutional calling. Although our present institutional
circumstances may make dwelling together in unity difficult or even, at times,
distasteful, we are no less obligated to remain steadfast in our unity in
Christ.
Conclusion
We who are entrusted with the leadership of the church today have an obligation
to look beyond quick fixes to our contemporary problems and consider how our
actions may impact the church in the years to come. The MCC makes good
and helpful suggestions for the future of the church, however their report is
fatally flawed if it includes the provision for Non-Geographic Presbyteries. The particular bell, if struck, can never be
un-rung.
Polity may be boring, but it is a
visible expression of our theological vision of the church. And make no mistake about it; this proposal
is bad polity and we neglect it at our peril.
[1]
“Such
presbyteries shall have all the rights and powers of presbyteries, except that
they shall not have the authority to dissolve, dismiss, or divide congregations
or to approve the sale, mortgage, lease, or transfer of the real property of
its constituent congregations without the consent of the congregation’s presbytery
of origin.” MCC Recommendation #6
No comments:
Post a Comment