|
|
From Landon Whitsitt, Cindy’s Vice-Moderator candidate
One of the reasons that I am excited to stand with Cindy as her Vice-Moderator is because of the work that she has done co-moderating the Form of Government Task Force and how that has affected the way she understands the church. In my conversations with her, here is what I’ve heard:
If our church doesn’t change, it won’t be relevant to future generations.
I think some would argue that it’s not relevant to current ones, but Cindy’s belief is that it doesn’t have to be that way. Cindy’s belief is that we can, somehow, figure out a way to make this thing called church “work” for everyone. Everyone can find a space to be and belong, to contribute the gifts/skills/passions that God has given them for the healing of the world, and they can do it with a minimum of intrusion.
Friends, Cindy is talking about an “open source church.” Now, I know that when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail, but as I listen to many of the things that Cindy is saying, I sometime feel like she’s dictating the book I’m trying to write, Open Source Church.
Regardless of the words we’d use, what does that idea mean – “open source church”? Whenever I try to explain “open source church” to someone I find it helpful to compare it to Wikipedia – the most successful open source organization that you have probably heard about. What would “church” look like if it were “wiki-church”?
First, it would mean that we’re clear about what and who we are and what and who we’re not. Wikipedia is very clear that it’s an encyclopedia, nothing more. We have to ask what a “church” is and be that and nothing more.
Second, we welcome everyone. Wikipedia prides itself on its “neutral point of view” which often means you have to represent several points of view. An “open source church” is not a monolithic one, does not pretend to be, nor desires to be one.
Third, anyone can participate. Wikipedia is not an exclusive club. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia, and they should expect that someone else will edit their contributions as well. An “open source church” doesn’t have a lot of hurdles one must jump in order to participate. there are not a lot of “unwritten rules” in an open source church. How about yours?
Fourth, when you disagree, be nice. Wikipedia has an established set of guidelines for dealing with disputes and people are expected to be nice and play fair. If a church can’t behave itself in disagreement then we’re not really a church are we?
Fifth, remember that there are no firm rules. Wikipedians are encouraged to remember that nothing is permanent and should, therefore, not be treated as such. Wikipedia is good because Wikipedians are willing to take risks sometimes – they break rules if it is for the benefit of the overall mission. If a church would commit itself to breaking free from long held traditions imagine the things it could do and be.
Being an “open source church” is not so much about content but attitude.
We don’t have to give up our beloved Book of Order, but we do need one that’s a little less dictatorial. We don’t have to give up hymns, but we also don’t shoot down the excited worship committee members who wants to experiment with other song choices. We don’t have to give up taking special offerings (please don’t give that up!) but we should look for ways to empower missional ideas from the people in the pews.
Being an open source is about trying new things to be the incarnational in the place where God has placed us. It means letting the “new folks” change the thing we’ve worked so hard to establish as the norm (Oh, the horror!). Being open source means remembering that this church is Christ’s church. That our Incarnational King is the one who will call and equip, not us.
Open source is about submitting to the “Reforming” tendency we may have forgotten about.
We’re now just about three weeks out from the opening gavel of the 219th General Assembly. Commissioners are working their way through the material that’s being posted on PC Biz, and are also dealing with all sorts of entreaties that have started appearing in our mailboxes.
Moderatorial candidates are also preparing. Last week, all six of us (myself and the Revs. James Belle, Jin Kim, Maggie Lauterer, Julia Leith, and Eric Nielsen) met in Louisville to get briefed on how the whole moderatorial election process works, and then, information applicable to one of us, what happens in the week that follows. We were joined by our nominees for Vice Moderator minus one (James Belle’s choice for VM was unable to be present).
Six candidates for Moderator! Long-time GA observers have tried to recall if and when that had ever happened before. Six is indeed a lot, but, from the church’s perspective, more is more. Each of us offers different backgrounds, different experiences within the church, and different ways in which we would seek to lead the P.C. (U.S.A.). At the same time, though, we each share the common goal of wanting our church to proclaim the Gospel prophetically and authentically in the 21st century.
We share another common goal: we have covenanted, one with another, to hold each other up in prayer during these weeks leading up to GA. One of us will, in the world’s terms, “succeed” on July 3, and the others will, again in the world’s terms, “lose.” Those are the world’s terms, not ours; we support one another, we pray for one another, we have promised to be there for one another no matter the outcome on the night of July 3.
We have developed relationships with each other. And that’s important, because it will be through relationships, and not just rules, that the P.C. (U.S.A.) can be a relevant force in a 21st century multicultural, post-modern society.
Relationships can start in many ways. If you’re a commissioner to GA, can you begin now to pray for another commissioner — perhaps unknown in name — whose theology or worldview is different from yours? GA is not about winning or losing. It’s about coming together and forming relationships, so that together we can discern where God is leading us.
Unlike the other candidates for Moderator, I am not employed by the church. So perhaps a little information about BNA, Inc. – my employer for my entire career as an attorney — might be helpful.
BNA’s official corporate name is “The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc,” with “Bureau” intending to connote ”news bureau.” What BNA has always done, and continues to do, is to provide the essential information and expert analysis that professionals in specific subject areas — tax, labor, environment, business, law — need in order to do their jobs. We have more credentialled reporters covering Capitol Hill than any other news organization. And, with more than 350 publications, we cover a vast array of subjects.
BNA is a preeminent newsgathering and news media organization. But the other reason that BNA stands out is that we are, and have been since our founding in 1947, employee-owned. We are the oldest completely employee-owned company in the United States.
I came to BNA more than 30 years ago figuring I’d stay for a few years and then move on. I haven’t moved on, because BNA became not just a place to work, but a community — a community that’s often found in the church but not that often found in workplaces. At BNA, our employees are our shareholders, and so employees at BNA are not just cogs in a wheel. When, several years ago, National Capital Presbytery needed a short-term Interim General Presbyter, BNA allowed me to go part-time in order to serve the Presbytery in that role.
There’s another link, in my mind at least, between BNA and the church — and in this sense I mean the wider church, the denomination. Just as our denomination is going through a time of discerning how we need to change our structure and processes in order to effectively proclaim the Gospel in today’s society, so too did BNA have to move through a time of unsettling change. Over the past decade, we have transformed BNA from a print-centric publisher to a Web publisher — a transformation that was difficult, scary, but absolutely necessary if BNA was to survive. It wasn’t easy — but we did it. So too, I believe, can the P.C. (U.S.A.) transform from an organization rooted in the mentality and structures of mid-twentieth century to a vibrant force that can bring Christ’s message to a 21st century society.
So, you might ask — what happens to me at BNA if I am elected Moderator? BNA knows I am a candidate for Moderator, and is supportive. I will say, however, and this probably doesn’t happen to my fellow Moderatorial candidates, eyes often glaze over at BNA when I say that I am a candidate to be the “Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the P.C. (U.S.A.).” The response often is, “say again?” If anyone can come up with a succinct definition of what being Moderator means that will be understood by persons not just outside the Presbyterian church, but outside any faith culture whatsoever — please let me know.
If I am granted the honor of being elected Moderator, serving as Moderator, and carrying out all the duties of the Moderator, will be my first priority. I will either retire (which I am now eligible to do) or convert to part-time status. I am a member of BNA’s Board of Directors, and intend to continue in that capacity, but I don’t expect that to present scheduling difficulties.
I feel incredibly blessed that one of my communities — BNA — has given me the experience, the skills, and the time to serve my other community — the Presbyterian Church.
And if anyone feels like they might need some essential information and expert analysis, you can’t do better than going to www.bna.com to see what we offer.
We’re getting into the homestretch before the 219th General Assembly convenes on July 3 in Minneapolis. Which leads to today’s topic for discussion: will that be a bad thing or a good thing? Discuss.
Everybody agrees that a good thing about GA is that it’s like a family reunion. It’s a time when people from across the denomination gather together, in all our diversity, quirkiness, and uniqueness, but also in our common love for Jesus Christ and in our grounding in the Reformed tradition. We worship together, we pray together, we make new friends, we reconnect with old (oops, sorry, long-time) friends.
But then there’s the other, evil twin side of GA: the divisiveness, the frustration, the late-night debates, the sense of winners versus losers, the tension as we fear a church being pulled apart.
Foothills Presbytery has sent in an overture that suggests that “official meetings” of GA be held only every six years, and that a “general convocation” be held in those years when we’re not having “official meetings.” The rationale — and I hope I’m not oversimplifying — is that since we don’t do decision-making very well, maybe if we do it less often things will be better.
But putting off bad decision-making isn’t the answer. The answer is to figure out how to improve our decision-making. The Committee on General Assembly Procedures will be dealing not just with the Foothills overture but with a number of other overtures that address this issue.
How can we improve our decision-making? One important step would be to make sure that sessions and presbyteries understand a simple, basic rule: that just because you CAN send an overture to GA doesn’t mean you SHOULD. There are many good and needed overtures that come to GA, but there are also many that simply reflect one individual’s quest to get official GA recognition of his or her pet issue. Or maybe pet peeve. Every session or presbytery that proposes an overture should first consider this question: is this really an issue that deserves the time, attention, and resources of more than 700 commissioners who have only one week to deal with all the business before them?
Maybe I’ll propose an overture in 2012 suggesting that an “overture impact statement” accompany every overture. Oh, wait. That’s just what I’ve said we shouldn’t do. Never mind. I’ll just talk about it instead. Spread the word if you agree.
Long-time GA junkies will recall that one of the first acts of the newly-elected Moderator was to choose a Vice Moderator. That often meant that the Vice Moderator was thrust into the spotlight of moderating the Assembly with no preparation other than immediate on-the-job training.
That has now changed. Moderator candidates are asked to choose their Vice Moderators well in advance of the Assembly, in part so that the Vice Moderator candidates can take part in pre-Assembly training.
I’m very pleased that the Rev. Landon Whitsitt, a minister-commissioner from Heartland Presbytery, has agreed to be my candidate for Vice Moderator. Landon is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Liberty, Mo. He is a graduate of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and, prior to being called to First, served in campus ministry and as the music director for a postmodern new church development. He is active with Presbymergent, the P.C. (U.S.A.) Ecumenical-Interfaith Network, and has served on our denomination’s Committee on Theological Education since 2008.
One of the strengths that our current Moderator, Bruce Reyes-Chow, and Vice Moderator, Byron Wade, have brought to the church is the emphasis on connecting not just through meetings but through social media. Landon’s skills and experience will help keep that kind of connectionalism happening. He currently produces the weekly podcast God Complex Radio with Carol Howard Merritt and Bruce Reyes-Chow, and is working on a book entitled Open Source Church.
Landon and his wife Jerilyn have four sons.
I’m excited about working with Landon, about continuing to reach out through social media, and, possibly, about being able to understand for the first time what “open source” means.
I’m not a hugger. Not to say that I NEVER hug, but it’s not my default mode of greeting.
But just because I don’t hug reflexively doesn’t mean I don’t value relationships. I believe it is only through our relationships with each other as Christians and as Presbyterians that we can effectively enable each other to proclaim the Gospel.
And I also believe that if the P.C. (U.S.A.) is not just to survive, but to thrive, it will be because of our relationships, not because of our rules. And when I say “relationships” I mean most especially relationships with people with whom we don’t agree – people whose theology may not agree with ours, people whose position on gay and lesbian ordination may not be the same as ours, even people who don’t like the same hymns we do (talk about serious differences!)
The disparate members of the PUP Task Force have spoken often of how fulfilling it was to get to really know people who didn’t hold the exact same views and opinions. By being in relationship with each other, they were able to talk with, instead of at, each other on the issues on which they disagreed. I have had a similar enriching experience in getting to know my fellow members of the Form of Government Task Force.
Maybe if we set up enough national task forces so that each and every one of us could serve on one, we would each have the opportunity to experience what the members of the PUP and FOG task forces have experienced. It would be a challenge, of course, to come up with enough unfortunate acronyms like PUP and FOG to name all these task forces, but we’re Presbyterians, we could do it.
I’m joking about creating a hundred thousand or so task forces. But we do need to be intentional about reaching out to know and understand those whose views are different than ours.
Here’s a thought: why don’t the Presbyterian Coalition and the Covenant Network hold a joint board meeting once a year? Or the Presbyterian Lay Committee get together with More Light Presbyterians? Or Presbyterian Voices for Justice meet up with Voices of Orthodox Women?
This is not a facetious suggestion. Getting the leaders of advocacy groups from either end of the spectrum together with each other could be a positive step forward. What do we have to lose?
OK, it’s pretty obvious that I can’t be neutral or dispassionate about the proposed new Form of Government — given that I’ve spent almost four years on the Form of Government Task Force.
But here’s why I believe we need the proposed new FOG.
Since the present Form of Government was adopted in 1983, it has been amended over 300 times. By contrast, our U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, has been amended just 27 times. Our Form of Government has morphed from a Constitution into a regulatory manual that tries to impose a “one size fits all” mentality.
The problem is that “one size fits all” no longer works. Every corner of Christ’s kingdom that comprises the P.C. (U.S.A.) involves different issues, different modes of operating. An Ethiopian immigrant congregation, an inner-city congregation that is doing ministry without a fixed place of worship, a new church development that meets in an arts center, a congregation in rural Alaska — “one size fits all” can’t possibly accommodate how they each do ministry.
The proposed new Form of Government preserves our overarching constitutional standards — the framework that binds us together — while at the same time granting the necessary flexibility to allow the innovation and creativity that are needed to do ministry in a multicultural society.
Adopting the proposed nFOG will not solve all our problems. But it’s a necessary first step. It’s a step towards transformation. It’s a step towards achieving a church that is built on relationships rather than rules. It’s a step towards achieving a church that relies as much on “energy, intelligence, imagination, and love” as on “decently and in order.” It’s a step we need to take to carry out our mission of proclaiming the Good News of the Gospel.
Want more information about nFOG? Check out the Form of Government website at www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/.
It’s “question and answer” time in the lives of the candidates for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly. We’re feverishly answering questions for the candidates’ booklet that will be sent to all commissioners, as well as questions from other sources like the Outlook.
One common issue keeps popping up in these questions: the conflict and disagreement within the P.C. (U.S.A.). What is the role of the Moderator during times of disagreement? What can this GA do to help bring resolution to our conflict? How can the church improve the climate and tone of our debates?
Why are we afraid of disagreement, or feel it’s automatically wrong? There has always been discord, contention, and conflict within the church, and there always will be. Proclaiming the Gospel is not easy; if all of us agree, all the time, on how to proclaim it prophetically, then we are proclaiming a tame, inauthentic Gospel.
What is wrong is when we allow dysfunctional people to act out and hijack otherwise productive meetings because we’re afraid to confront them, maybe for fear that “they’ll leave the church.” What is wrong is when we personalize our disagreements by diminishing the person who opposes us by saying, “I am a true Christian and you are utterly wrong in what you believe.”
My hope is that the 219th General Assembly can model for the denomination, and for the world, how we as Presbyterians can debate, discuss, and discern God’s will regarding issues on which we profoundly disagree — doing so in a manner and style that is respectful of one another and one another’s views.
Experienced GA watchers tell me that the Moderator’s race is won — or lost — by the way the candidates respond during the Q and A portion of the Saturday night election process.
SO, the best way to prepare for that is to practice answering questions!
This Saturday, May 1, from 10:00 until noon, there will be a practice QandA session at First Presbyterian Church, 601 N.Vermont Street, Arlington. Parking is available; the church is also only a couple of blocks from the Ballston Metro.
Come with the questions that you think commissioners will be asking on July 3. Your feedback and comments on my responses will also be most welcome and appreciated.
I’m not providing breaking news by saying that the P.C. (U.S.A.) is experiencing membership decline. As a denomination, we need to talk openly about what declining membership means, or, as the case may be, doesn’t mean.
But this post is not about declining membership, it’s about the numbers, and about the concept of “membership.”
I have been privileged to serve as clerk of Session in two different congregations. For the most part, I loved the job — I loved trying to help the Session act as effectively as possible in leading the congregation in its ministry and witness.
But here’s one thing I didn’t love: the annual statistical report.
And here is my confession: I made up numbers on the annual statistical report.
If Gradye Parsons or anybody else in Louisville is through some miracle reading this, I’m claiming that the statute of limitations protects me from any retributive measures. All my made-up numbers were so, so long ago…Plus, starting tomorrow, I’m going into the clerk protection program.
Why did I make up numbers? Because I had no idea, and I refused to ask, what the ethnicities were of our members, or who had a mobility, or a hearing, or a vision problem, or even what everyone’s age was. I understand the need for demographics to better tell us who we are as a denomination and to figure out how best to allocate resources. But I was not about to venture into the realm of intrusiveness in order to fill our a denominational report. So I made numbers up.
Among the numbers I made up was how many “inactive” members the congregation had. I didn’t make this number up entirely — I simply extrapolated what I thought would be a logical number from the prior year’s report. How should I know how many inactive members we have? They’re inactive, for heaven’s sake! They’re not around — we don’t even know for sure if they’re alive or dead.
I do not want to impugn the integrity of all clerks of session, so let me hasten to say that I know of no other clerks who have done what I have done. And let me also say that all of my “active” membership numbers were always absolutely correct (and not made up).
All this leads me to ask: what is the meaning of membership?
I’m a boomer; we’re joiners. We’re especially joiners of churches, because that’s what you did in the 1950s and 60s. It’s what our parents did, and we followed that same pattern. But that’s no longer the case. Today a 30-year old may be active in the congregation but may not see the point of becoming a “member.”
Setting aside for the moment the (large) questions of per capita funding and how to determine the representation of congregations and presbyteries in higher governing bodies without membership numbers, should we care whether someone is a “member” of the congregation? Or should we instead care whether he or she is committed to following Jesus?
Is there some way we can measure the health and vitality of our congregations other than through “members?”
|
