Middle Governing Bodies Commission

Updated! The Mid Council Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful #pcusa

UPDATED! "Missional Presbyteries":  Short Videos Introducing the MCC Report Big Ideas. 

This brief presentation gives the highlights of the Mid Council Commission Report: Download MCC Report Made Simple

For the full written report click here.

For the executive summary click here.

For the Changing Contexts and Adaptive Change section click here

For the "Colors of Vitality: Models of Adaptive Change" Report click here

For the "Outlines of Possibilities: Synods as Multi-Presbytery Missional Partnerships" Report click here

For the "Guiding Principles" click here.

For John Vest's blog post series click here.

For Tod Bolsinger's blog post series click here.

 

The Mid Council Report: What is "Missional"? #PCUSA

The center concept in the Mid-Council Commission Report is that all structures of the church should serve "missional congregations."  There is much conversation and considerable confusion over what 'missional' means. 

We offer these definitions:

• Missional congregations: the central organizing principle is personal and communal participation in the mission of God in Jesus Christ to redeem and heal all of creation.
• A Missional PC(USA): every structure beyond the congregation exists so that congregations can fulfill their mission.

Here is a 2 minute video that help us to define a key term in the Mid-Council Report.

 

To get another brief overview of the Mid-Council Report, see our Powerpoint presentation, The Mid Council Commission Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

 

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;”  a permission-giving structure that is built around shared agreements, covenants, values and convictions rather than around top-down enforced alignment, and 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 institutional and 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 GMAC 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.

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 become new ways of seeing and new ways of bringing the water of life to a parched world.  What would it look like, for 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.)

From the The MGB Commission Observation Deck #8

I don’t know who said it first, (Stephen Covey? Paul Batalden? Ed Demming?)  but it gets quoted all the time.  I said it myself yesterday in one of my coaching calls with a pastor.  Here it is:  “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” 

And as our MGB Commission has flown around the country, sat in on conference calls, talked to dozens of EPs and Synod Execs and Elders and Pastors and committee members and GA staff members we have seen the truth of this pithy saying.  And here is our next observation from our travels around the PCUSA:

Our system is perfectly designed to safeguard the status quo.

We want change.  We know we need change.  We are almost desperate for change.  And frankly we know the world is changing faster than we are.   Our Commission was formed to look at that reality squarely and “develop models” for discipleship for changing cultural context.  Everywhere we go, we have been charged, exhorted, prodded and pleaded with to be “be bold”, to “bring change” to “think outside the box”, to “dream, envision, imagine” etc. 

Yet, the system as we have it is perfectly designed to keep things, well… the same.  Even the charge that our Commission was given boils down to this….

• IF you can get every affected Presbytery to agree to a change… and
• IF you can get every affected Synod to agree to a change… and
• IF it is consistent with the constitution as it is currently written…
• THEN…You can come to the Commission and ask for approval to do and ‘experiment’ or re-configure or re-align in a bold, creative, out-of-the-box kind of way. 

Which is at least one reason why one year after we were formed, we have had exactly ZERO proposals come to our Commission for approval.  (And frankly, most innovators are being thwarted by the constitution not presbyteries or synods.)

Because we all believe in the total depravity of humanity, and we all have experienced the pain of someone who ran with the scissors in the church parking lot or dominated the conversation or wouldn’t keep the rules, our system is designed to be a safeguard against dysfunction.  It’s like the structure of our national government (something endless pointed out in seminary classes on polity), that is designed for protecting against the tyranny of the majority and keeping checks and balances in places.  It’s a conservative system meant to preserve what has been, not innovative into what can be.  Our government and our church structure is designed to use regulations to protect each other from the folly or arrogance or blundering bull-headedness of any of our members.  In that way, our structure is designed so that the default answer is “no.”

That is not to say that lots of old guard stakeholders have dug in their heels.  Frankly, that's not what we are hearing.  While there are certainly some, MOST leaders that I talk are simply stuck in a system that has over time stunted our imaginative capacity to actually think and dream of different, new ways of doing things.  (As an architect once said, "First you build your buildings, and then your buildings build you.")

And this is not to say that there is no creative, experimental, out-of-the-box thinking going on out there.  There is.  But they really don’t require a Commission at all.  Those presbyteries and synods that are being led by creative leaders within environments of relatively high degrees of health and trust, filled with “mature and motivated” people are already making changes.  We are trying to learn from them, applaud them and will pass along as we go the key lessons that can be applied to all. 

But even in these places, we have found the ‘default’ in the system is not about serving these healthy leaders so they can continue to be creative, innovative and bold, as they lead their communities toward health, fidelity and fruitfulness, it’s about keeping these innovative change leaders in check. (Which says something about "trust" which will be the next observation.)

(By the way, have you ever noticed that we only have two “official” titles beyond the congregational level?  We have “Moderators” and “Clerks”.  Our structure is designed with one person to insure that everybody takes turn talking and another person checks the rules and takes the notes.  Our structure is not designed for mission, but for conversation.  It’s is not designed for innovation but deliberation.)

But… (And here if there was a soundtrack playing in the background, the strings would start in and your heart would soar just a bit)… but… one of the other truths is that even just “observing something changes it.”  By our raising this observation, we on the Commission hope to also raise some questions about the kinds of structures that we need for actually being part of God's mission to change the world. 

Are we ready to take risks enough to change the design of the system (especially the constitution) to SERVE the healthiest communities, to SERVE the healthiest leaders, to SERVE the mission of the church, and to design for the uncertainties of the future rather than the problems of the past? 

And, what would it take for us to be ready? 

If we don’t...well, we are perfectly designed…for staying right where we are.

From the The MGB Commission Observation Deck #7 #mgbcomm

Last night while my wife and daughter were up stairs watching American Idol, my son showed me a YouTube video that got us laughing so hard that we had tears in our eyes.  When my wife heard us from upstairs, she muted the TV and called down to us, “Are you guys ok?”  Still laughing we yelled up that we were. She responded, “I couldn’t tell if you were laughing or crying, so I thought I’d check.”  Assured her that we were having a blast together, the women of the house went back to watching American Idol. 

That pause in the show, that checking in on the action, and that paying attention to the energy “down stairs” is what this MGB Commission observation is all about.

After a whirlwind of consultations and conversations that have had our commission  busy on the dance floor (if you call flying across the country, sitting in on conference calls and sending copious emails “dancing”)  I want to go back to the balcony and check in with another MGB Commission Observation. 

Before I do, let me quickly review and provide links to the Observations thus far:

• Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.
• Observation #2:  Almost everybody agrees that something has to change. 
• Observation #3: Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 
• Observation #4: We don’t have to develop any models, we only have to discover the models that are already out there.
• Observation #5: “The future is already here, but it is on the margins.” 
• Observation #6:We are in need of more practical theology on the unity of the Church and the diversity of churches.

Now Observation #7:  There is a lot of energy around five conversations: Missional Communities, MGB Programs, Geography, Synods and Small.

This observation is based on the concept that when you are seeking to bring large-scale adaptive change to a system one of the principles is to “follow the energy”.  The energy in a conversation tells you where the “stuff” is.  Sometimes the energy is anxiety that is unfocused in any constructive direction.  At times, that energy can be little more than destructive ranting, or defensive resisting.  Other times, energy is the exciting possibilities that are emerging (and in turn, the resistance to the new ideas, the fears and anxieties, the defenses and confusion.)

Just like my wife couldn’t tell if the sounds from the kitchen between my son and I were “good” or “bad” or a mix of both, we can’t quite tell what all the energy is leading to, but here is what we see.  Like groups of dancers who are all migrating to different areas of the floor to join in an energetic dance during a song (think of whole wedding parties doing the “Thriller” dance), there are some places of energy in the conversation about the future of the church and the role of middle governing bodies at the moment:

1.       Missional Communities? There is beginning to be lots of buzz about church planting or “birthing new missional communities”.  The GAMC goal of starting 1001 new missional communities is creating an excited stir and that has immediately led to the question of what MGB structures are needed to support that goal.  Just like the missional conversation, the “missional community birthing” conversation is at the moment messy and unwieldy, but it is going on across the theological spectrum and presbyteries and synods are immediately caught up in a bigger conversation about their role in this messy, unwieldy moment.

2.       MGB Programs?  Do our future structures need to be able to support Presbytery-wide or Synod-wide missions or programs, or is the ‘basic’ structure of the future only whatever is needed to support the mission of congregations?  What do we do with our historic and deeply cherished missions, programs and, yes, funds that we no longer have the capacity or maybe even the desire to continue?  The last restructuring of the Middle Governing Bodies was in large part to create “programmatic presbyteries.”  Is this day over?

3.       Geography? Is there some theological or missional reason for insisting on geographical boundaries for Presbyteries?  Could we instead realign by “missional commitments” or even shared theological expression within our larger Reformed body, like say, the Presbyterian Church in Mexico or the City Classis of the RCA. 

(Note: There is LOTS of energy around this one.  So far almost every proposal that is trying to make its way to our commission is about gaining permission to reorganize presbyteries around shared missional or theological commitments instead of geographical bounds.)

4.       Synods? This one is actually marked by a lack of energy until the topic is raised.  When we ask people about their MIDDLE GOVERNING BODIES, they respond by telling us about their PRESBYTERIES.  But when someone suggests in a focus group that maybe Synods should be eliminated, then the energy is raised in the room in appreciation of a grand history of faithful programs supported by Synods (see #1).  It seems to me we both ignore and then fiercely defend Synods (and I am still scratching my head on what that means).

5.       Could Small hold the answer?  Pardon the pun, but Joe Small’s paper that advocated (among many other interesting ideas) the return to smaller presbyteries is getting a LOT of buzz out there.  But how would we do it? Could they be sustainable?  And what competing values get raised when we start trying to “think small” in a national church?

Please note that as a Commission, we are still firmly in our “consultation” and “listening” phase.  We haven’t even received back all the data (and you too can fill out a survey!), but these themes seem to be generating the energy out on the wild dance floor that is the PCUSA. Perhaps we missed one that you see.  I imagine that many of you may have an opinion (or twelve!) about a number of these.  Please feel free to respond to this post with yours.  Indeed, I’ll offer a personal question of my own:

What would it look like if we had a structure that encouraged each congregation to be in whatever configuration of Presbytery they discerned would nurture its unique and shared missional calling as a congregation, including birthing new missional communities and joining in partnership with other churches around shared commitments, programs or mission projects? What kinds of Presbyteries would we need? What kinds of Synod? 

From the MGB Commission Observation Deck #6 #mgbcomm

Last Saturday evening, I performed a wedding and enjoyed a good reception for a few hours before I headed off to my early pre-Sunday morning worship bed time.  Truth be told, I usually leave right when the dancing starts.  My wife and my daughter stayed.  They dance better than I do and they don’t have to get up and finish a sermon at 5 AM like I always do.  But as I was leaving it struck me that most people don’t dance in couples anymore, it’s more like they dance in groups.  Little small revolving circles of what my teenage daughter calls “friend groups.” All the people in the groups dancing with each other, all the while chatting away, laughing at their old jokes and telling old stories.  It’s less about intimacy and more about involvement.  And it doesn’t matter if you don’t have a date (or if your husband is a boring, dud pastor who goes to bed early).  In your “friend group” you have a whole bunch of dance partners, who will all join you as part of a small subset of a larger dance, where everyone is listening to the same music and filling a much larger dance floor, both part of the whole and part of something smaller all at the same time.

For the better part of the last two months, I have been offering the observations that our Commission is making as we spread out across the country to talk to people about our church and its way of being church together.  In these periodic posts, we have been inviting you all to come join us on a balcony where we look down on the dance floor that is the PCUSA to get a glimpse of what we are seeing and to help us try to interpret what we are hearing.  I have a hunch that this post could end up being the most important one yet.  It’s not so much about the ‘dancing’ as the “friend groups” of people who are moving about and talking together and revolving around each other in the larger dance.  Consider this an observation, not so much about the dance itself, but the ongoing dance floor conversations about the dance. 

Some of the conversations are passionate, even heated.  Others are detached.  Still others are just eager to stop talking focus on the missional dance of proclaiming and demonstrating the reign and will of God to a world in need.  But even over the music, the din of voices can be heard and there is one common conversation amidst all the different “friend groups”.  Consider this Observation #4:

We are in need of more practical theology on the unity of the Church and the diversity of churches.

Specifically we need to attempt answer these questions together:

• What does it mean to be a unified Church with a diversity of churches?  
  What structures express both unity and diversity faithfully and fruitfully?  
• How can we best organize ourselves so that our unity in Christ and the diversity of witness that is present in our congregations is most faithful and most fruitful for witnessing to the God who is Three-in-One? 

For this post, I want to save my own opinions and instead offer you a chance to listen in on the conversations of others.  You will hear some interesting and creative thinking about the way we manage the polarities and deal with the competing values of trying to affirm our unity and oneness in Christ while acknowledging that there is a growing diversity of opinion on positions that are deeply held and passionately argued. Indeed, some of our “friend groups” were formed because of these positions. 

For some, this ongoing conversation IS the work of the church, seeing our mission as maybe even fundamentally engaging in a raucous but respectful conversation about theological matters (the BBC broadcasts of British parliament debates come to mind).  For others, this conversation is the greatest hindrance to the mission itself, frustrating those who feel as if we keep interrupting the dance for discussion. 

The issues are around missional purpose, community and covenant, theological affinity and geography.  Indeed, almost every experimental model that is working its way through the system at the moment is trying as creatively and faithfully as possible to ask: Within a larger unity in Christ, is it possible to find alignments where those who share more theological similarities could be joined together for the sake of our mission?  Are there some ways of being that will allow different groups to function as faithful differentiated missional entities within a larger shared unity of faith?  Are there models from the past or other Christian traditions that are helpful here? Are their fruitful possibilities that we haven't considered yet?

What would be gained if we did?  What could we lose?  Are there unintended consequences we can avoid?  Are there unrecognized possibilities that we can’t yet imagine?

And a recurring question that needs to be explored with lots of depth, wisdom and patience (not to mention creativity, imagination, and love): In a world where communication and connection is facilitated by technology, where “tribes” can affiliate and organize, connect and relate even across the globe, what is the theological rationale for structuring geographically?  

In every case clear, GOOD, healthy, faithful and COMPETING values are at stake.  Certainly, there are mistakes that could be made; unhelpful, even damaging choices, that should be avoided.  At the same time, fear of doing something wrong could keep us from doing something new that might genuinely engage our witness.  

Perhaps most heartening, this conversation is engaging some sharp theological minds even in deep disagreement.  So, let me encourage you (like our General Assembly Moderator before me) to look in (listen in?) on these conversations, add your own voice to them and take up the conversation on the dance floor.  Hopefully you’ll consider a new dance partner from another friend group than those you usually hang out with.  Maybe you’ll discover something you have in common (like that for all our diversity we are all dancing to the same song!).  Who knows? Maybe you’ll bring a few new steps back to your own group and the whole dance will take on a new fresh energy.

• Two articles from Barry Ensign-George about the unity of the faith and what exactly we are talking about when we talk “denominations.”
  

 

• A theological critique of the Fellowship PCUSA White Paper that asks us to consider if we suffer from a deficient Christology.  Meanwhile the Fellowship itself has offered up some “markers” for a way forward. (Leslie Scanlon of the Outlook has an analysis) 

• San Diego Executive Presbyter Clark Cowden uses the metaphor of the NCAA and it’s various and ever evolving leagues to ask whether geographical regions have outlived their usefulness (a question raised by the Fellowship PCUSA, too) and  that maybe realignment around theological affinity has something to offer within a larger expression of unity. 
  
  
• At the same time,  John Vest (an MGB Commissioner) calls the church to a greater urgency for church planting while he also  questions the conviction of our New Church Planters that there need be some clear theological agreement to form healthy churches (and questions whether the Council in Acts 15 got it wrong in the first place). While Vice-Moderator Landon Whitsett offers his concerns about too much emphasis on “like-mindedness” as well.

(Please add any other posts, articles or discussions on this theme to the comments and if you are interested in the first five Observations, you will find them starting from the beginning here.)

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #5

Welcome to the fifth Observation from the balcony that is our particular place as the Middle Governing Body Commission.  (For the previous four Observations click here to begin with the first.)  While the votes on the amendments, an ongoing discussion about the Fellowship PCUSA and the NEXT Church conversations and well, frankly and very gladly, the onset of Lent are in the center of most of our thoughts, I want to offer an observation that is almost a continuation of the last and a precursor of my next.  Think of this as a corollary of Observation #4 (“We don’t have to develop any models, we only have to discover the models that are already out there”) and a bit of priming the pump for what I believe may be the most significant issue that needs to be discussed. (Yes, that's a tease for next week...)

This present observation is meant to once again focus our attention on what we believe is the work of the Spirit in the church, a work that calls for our commission to be as much about discernment as we are about “developing” anything. 

Observation #5: “The future is already here, but it is on the margins.”  

I don’t know who said it first but I remember who said it to me.  He was a Korean-American church planter who had moved his whole family across the country to plant a multi-ethnic congregation in Orange County.  That line about future and margins stuck in my brain.  Here was a guy with no money, no denominational backing, no big school credentials, no office, no buildings, no paid staff, planting a church that literally had to move to a different location every time they met for worship.  In the wild consumer-driven, user-friendly mecca of south Orange County California, he was starting a church that required people to go to a website and find the location where the church was meeting that week!  As I listened to him I marveled.  I was the pastor of an established congregation that was on prime real estate in a very desirable and growing community.  At the time we were dedicated to being as “user-friendly” and even “seeker-friendly” as possible, yet getting people to attend a church that was as convenient and comfortably, accessible and welcoming as we could make it was still a daunting challenge.  Maybe this voice from the margins had something to offer my very “centered” church. (That church is now—years later--internationally respected and is considered a model for what churches of the future could be like.)

I was reminded of this statement while at the NEXT Conference as I listened to another church planter, who said something very similar: New paradigms come from those who live on the margins between different social systems or cultures and bring their practices and insights into the “dead center.”  (I don’t know if he was intentionally making a pun with a bit of a pinch, but I certainly heard it that way.) 

When the center engages the insights from the margins, the center comes alive and moves toward the future.  

Now, while a much broader and more significant conversation needs to keep occurring about who exactly is on the margins, how we insure that all the "voices long-silenced" are heard, and while our Commission is working very hard with the Committee on Representation to avoid missing key voices from the margins who can offer us insights that are being vastly overlooked, this argument about voices from the margins is even more relevant when we are talking about changing organizational structures. 

We are finding that many who would otherwise be considered part of the center experience our very structures as marginalizing. 

In many ways that are NOT all that obvious at first glance that is what the NEXT Church Conference and the Fellowship PC(USA) have in common.  They are odd amalgams of the restless margins of the church and the "dead center" (trying!) to engage in that conversation and bring to the surface a myriad of possibilities that are being overlooked and issues to consider.  The most common and glib tweet about NEXT Church was how much it “looked like the old church” yet there were also 70 seminarians in attendance and a chorus of voices sang out the challenge of broadening and deepening the conversation to those who were missing.  (And by the way, those very same restless and creative seminarians were almost entirely absent from the conversation about Middle Governing Bodies… if there is a subject that feels like “dead center” to them, this must be it to them.) 

And while I know this is likely to draw a howl of protest from some corners of the church, many of the now over 320 signers of the “Fellowship PC(USA)” letter see themselves as on the margins, too, when it comes to discussions about denominational structures. 

(No, I don't really think that many of them would claim to be culturally marginalized.  We Presbyterians by definition are "mainline".  But whether you agree or not, this is a key tenet of Beau Weston’s equally provocative argument in Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.  Many large church pastors I know agreed wholeheartedly with Beau’s description of the marginalization of “tall steeple pastors” in Presbytery structures.  And as critical as some have been toward the PCUSA Fellowship letter it is an attempt by leaders who while feeling themselves marginalized are trying to engage the broad center of the church in a conversation about the future.)

Now, even if you disagree with my descriptors of WHO is on the margin, my observation is that the most creative possibilities are coming from the interaction of those who consider themselves on the “margins” and an open and alive “center”.

Where leaders in power are listening to those who are currently bored, checked out or discouraged and engaging them in the work, there is a sense of anticipation that we are glimpsing something toward which to move.  (Which is why I think the NEXT Church leaders were prescient to work so hard to include the seminarians.)

Where “powerbrokers” and “long time stakeholders” are open to engaging the ideas, models and possibilities of the restless on the fringe, the disconnected in the back pews, those lingering in the narthex of the greater church (or even those heading out the door?) with a desire to learn, new ways of thinking and seeing are possible.  If the margins and the “not-so-dead” center can interact with each other relationally and have theological discussions respectfully, there is possibility for genuine lasting change.

James Davison Hunter wrote about this in To Change the World,

“Change is often initiated outside of the centermost positions. When change is initiated in the center, then it typically comes from outside of the center's nucleus. Wherever innovation begins, it comes as a challenge to the dominant ideas and moral systems defined by the elites who possess the highest levels of symbolic capital.” 

The key point here is that for true lasting “cultural” change to occur (even within an institution) those in the “center” and those “outside of the center” must be engaged in the conversation.  It is the interaction of the margins and the center that creates the new possibilities.

I raise this observation as a way of encouraging hope in the face of our tendency toward cynicism and resistance.  I believe we are in a moment when those in the “center” of the church, including our leaders in Louisville, our theologians and historians, our Moderator and Vice-Moderator, EPs and Synod Execs across the nation, and church leaders from across the theological spectrum are openly looking to engage the ideas and perspectives of those--especially those--who don’t consider themselves in the “center”.  

So, as one who would never have thought that I would be in the center of a denomination-wide discussion about our future and structure, (that may be the subject of another post) I want to continually use these posts to invite conversation and input--especially from those who are outside of my direct sphere of contact. 

Please help me see what you see on at your outpost on the frontier of the future.   What kinds of structures will serve your mission? 

What do you want our commission to hear? What do we need to see from your perspective?

What kinds of structures do you want us to consider so that we can move toward the future that you are entering ahead of us?

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #4

Thanks for joining me once more, up on the “observation deck” situated in the balcony over the dance floor that is the PC(USA).  I am writing this on my flight back from the NEXT Conference in Indianapolis and feel a bit disoriented and out of breath from the twirls, spins and moves of a most vibrant and interesting dance.  (Not to mention a tornado that blew me straight to Louisville where I needed to be rescued by friends.)

While the leadership looked a lot (but not entirely) like me (read “Old Church” not “Next Church”) the presence of 70 or so seminarians, a considerable number of GA staff members, Executive Presbyters, Seminary Presidents, the GA Moderator, the author of the “deathly ill” letter and some engaged elders led to a number of interesting conversations that have only affirmed the observations that we have offered so far and especially this fourth one I’d like to offer. 

Here is a quick recap of the Observations that we are finding along the way then on to Observation #4.
Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.
Observation #2:  Almost everybody agrees that something has to change.
Observation #3: Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

Now:
Observation #4: We don’t have to develop any models, we only have to discover the models that are already out there.

At first glance this may seem like we are neglecting our charge as a Commission.  Indeed, right after it says that we are to “consult with the church”, it is written: "Thou Shalt Develop Models."  (Okay, it actually says, “The commission will 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.”)  Notice: the verb is “develop.”

But we have had a sense, only confirmed by others who are in the field, that there are already a number of “ways of being” an ordered, connectional, missional church that are “responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship” (again from our Charge).  And that we are more about discovering and discerning the lessons of missional faithfulness that are already present than we are trying to “develop” one “silver bullet” solution to denominational entropy.

One of the pastors who attended the conversation on Middle Governing Bodies was Jud Hendrix, a church planter with the Ecclesia Project in Louisville, who after hearing of the approach of the Commission, told me about the book, The Power of Positive Deviance, which I read on the flight home.  It’s a study in adaptive change that suggests that when faced with really huge, seemingly intractable, even “impossible” problems, the best solution is found by looking for and learning from those bright spots who are already beating the odds.  As the authors write: “Positive deviance is founded on the premise that at least one person in a community, working with the same resources as everyone else, has already licked the problem that confounds others.”

They key is NOT to think of this “positive deviant” as a quick fix solution, but instead to learn from them what they might not even know about why they are succeeding when others fail.  In other words, “positive deviants” are those who “get it right” even unconsciously and defy the odds for bringing change.  They are not experts who analyzed, strategized and developed a well-thought out plan with a fail-proof solution, but are “outliers who succeed against all odds”, their solution often being “hidden in plain sight.” 

I quickly realized that this approach is exactly what we are using and finding so fruitful already in the MGB Commission.  We are looking for those places where the Presbyteries and Synods contribute to flourishing growing ministries that are reaching people beyond the usual Presbys-in-the-pew.  We are looking for where the Presbytery meeting is “not deadly dull” but instead beginning to engage people in shared missional collaboration that strengthens both effectiveness and relationships.  We are hearing stories of “Virtual Synods” that have already sold their building so that more money can go into community, building, training and resource development of church leaders.  We found a “middle judicatory” from another denomination that has realigned around a shared commitment to urban church planting instead of geographical boundaries and is thriving so well they are starting to help other denominations (including the PCUSA) plant churches in cities.  We are finding common themes and ideas that are coming from majority-world countries that are growing (if you haven’t heard about the new church development success in the Presbyterian Church in Brazil, you really should) and from Presbyteries in our denomination (yes, really!) who ARE already changing.  In the words of the authors, “What’s working against-all-odds is a breath of fresh air.”

As we go about our “consultation” with the church, we are in the discovery and discernment business more than the development business. To that end, I have three personal thoughts about discovering and discerning models that are already out there. 

 

1.  This is not only a breath of fresh air, but a great source of hope.  God is at work in the church, there are signs of life.  There are green shoots fighting their way toward the light through the dark deep pavement of an old regulatory system that is stifling creativity with both rules and personal resistance. Some of that is in the restlessness and even critique found in the Tweeters at NEXT Church.  Others “green shoots” are found in the collaborative experiments that are being drawn up on napkins during conversations amongst church leaders.  Still others are found as people begin to rethink traditional "boundaries" and relate to each other in new ways for the sake of mission.  Maybe in a post-modern world form follows function-in-relationship.  
   
   
2. Positive Deviants are no guarantee for widespread change.  Whether you object to the characterization of the denomination as “deathly ill” or think that instead this a God-given “exile” to teach us some collective lesson, or that we are still mid-Phyllis Tickle-like “rummage sale” and eventually we’ll figure this, or instead think that the church is just fine because “We’ve got Spirit, yes we do!”  the fact of the matter is that the church is collectively finally aware  something needs to change.  We have to acknowledge the Positive Deviants as “deviants” that are exceptions to the “rule” of decline, discouragement and disengagement and we have to resist our own tendency to defensiveness and rationalization and our personal "immunity to change" that keeps us stuck in old, unfruitful ways.
   
   
3. Once we discover, we have some discerning to do, too. Perhaps the most important part of our charge is not a word, but a single letter.  It’s the “s” on the end of “models”.  Models. Plural.  We are not going to come up with ONE “silver bullet” model that we will seek to impose upon the church in some top-down regulatory fashion.  We might not end up thinking in terms of “models” at all, but perhaps “illustrations.”  Instead as we acknowledge that the church is in need of change AND there are positive deviants out there inviting us to learn alongside them, we are discovering not just models but truths.  We are discovering real possibilities for being the church together that will challenge our assumptions, cause us to seek changes in the constitution to eliminate obstacles and hopefully, even prayerfully, lead to renewal in our congregations, in our communities, and in our lives. 

In the meantime, know of any “positive deviants”?  If so, let us know so we can learn from them.